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

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2020/04/10 6:14, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 9, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:58 AM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree to make a big deal part. My point is that when kicking trees of linux-next, it also could reduce the exposure of many patches (which could be bad) to linux-next and miss valuable early testing either from robots or human.
>>
>> Sure. But I'd want to be notified when something gets kicked out, so
>> that I then know not to pull it.
>>
>> So it would reduce the exposure of patches, but it would also make
>> sure those patches then don't make it upstream.
>>
>> Untested patches is fine - as long as nobody else has to suffer through them.
> 
> Excellent. It now very much depends on how Stephen will notify you when
> a tree, a patchset or even a developer should be blacklisted for some time
> to make this a success.
> 

Since patch flow forms tree structure, I don't know whether maintainers can
afford remembering which tree, patchset or developer should be blacklisted
when problems come from leaf git trees.



By the way...

Removing problematic trees might confuse "#syz test:" request, for
developers might ask syzbot to test proposed patches on a kernel which
does not contain problematic trees. In lucky case, test request fails
as patch failure or build failure. But in unlucky case, syzbot fails to
detect that proposed patch was tested on a kernel without problematic
trees. A bit related to https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/1609 .