Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on
>> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many
>> trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a
>> staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are
>> _tested_ there, is they are not tested there, bugs enter upstream
>> tree. And then it takes much longer to get fix into other trees.
>>
>> So the question is: what trees/branches should be tested? Preferably
>> in priority order as syzbot can't test all of them.
>>
>
> I always thought that -next existed specifically to give people a
> chance to test the code in it. Maybe the question is where to report
> the test results ?

FTR, from Guenter on another thread:

> 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.

If we agree on some list of important branches, and what branches
specifically should not be tested with automatic reporting, I think it
will benefit everybody.
+Fengguang, can you please share your list and rationale behind it?