On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if we
can work w/o any rules -- unless you want to be accurate&helpful or to
customize test behaviors.
Since we already tested the original patch/commit (hence the report),
we should know where the fixup should be applied to. And it'd be
reasonably easy to tell whether the fix is incremental or a
replacement -- just try git-am onto the original commit first, if
failed, continue to try the parent commit. For old bugs the fix could
be against linus/master or linux-next/master, which could be tried too.
Yes, that'd be most convenient. In general the email interface could
be something like this:
# "key: value" fields; if you Re: to an earlier bug report, they can be auto retrieved
compiler: gcc-6 # optional
base-commit: v4.10-rc8 # the robot knows kernel commits from hundreds of public git trees
attach kconfig files
Yap, just stick those rules somewhere on a website.
Btw, this is not only useful for a follow-on, fix patch but also for
initial test request. For example, I want to backport patch to stable
and would like to run it on a bunch of kernels:
base-commit: v4.4-stable, v4.9-stable, ...
i.e., a list of trees to apply it to. I believe people might like this a
Or, for example, a patch touching a bunch of arches and author doesn't
necessarily have access to all those different toolchains. Shoot a mail
to the 0day bot:
arch: x86_64, powerpc, sparc, ...
Would be very useful too.
Anyway, just a couple of ideas.
What would also be cool if you guys had a 0day bot howto with all those
things we should pay attention to and we can go and look up.