Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap.  If someone
>>> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering
>>> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code
>>> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad.
>>>
>>> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of
>>> linux-next please just test Linus's tree.   That will be much more
>>> meaningful and productive.
>>
>> I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day
>> testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does
>> not test linux-net,
>

Interesting. Assuming that refers to linux-next, not linux-net, that
may explain why linux-next tends to deteriorate. I wonder if I should
drop it from my testing as well. I'll be happy to follow whatever the
result of this exchange is and do the same.

Guenter

> I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not
> useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers
> as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be
> tested.