Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Let's please move discussion of this topic to "what trees/branches to
> test on syzbot" thread. This thread is now about too many things.
> Hope you don't mind if I repost your last email there.

Sure, go ahead.

Guenter