Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports

Stephen Rothwell
2020-04-09T23:29:58Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1535 bytes --]

Hi Linus,

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:32:32 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:55 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > linux-next is boot-broken for more than a month and bugs are piling
> > onto bugs, I've seen at least 3 different ones.
> > syzbot can't get any working linux-next build for testing for a very
> > long time now.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Ok, that's not good. It means that linux-next has basically only done
> build-testing this whole cycle.

Well, there are other CI's beyond syzbot .. Does syzbot only build/test
a single kernel arch/config?

> Stephen, Dmitry - is there some way linux-next could possibly kick out
> trees more aggressively if syzbot can't even boot?

Of course that could be done if I knew that there were problems. From
memory and my mail archives, I was only cc'd on 3 problems by sysbot
since last November and they were all responded to by the appropriate
maintainers/developers.

Currently, when I am cc'd on reports, if they are also sent to who
seem like the appropriate people, I just file the report assuming it
will be dealt with.

> Kicking trees out of linux-next and making noise if they cause syzbot
> failures might also make some maintainers react more..

That may be true, but in some cases I have carried fixups/reverts/older
versions of trees for quite some time before things get fixed. But at
least if that happens, I do tend to remind people.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]