Re: Policy regarding linux-next only changes

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2026/07/22 23:19, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> During that time, we would stop fuzzing the main net/net-next
> repositories.

I don't want to stop the main repositories. 

> I am afraid the only way to achieve that is to ensure the patch
> reaches upstream.

Yes, I know. I think there are two problems (technical one and procedural one).

The technical problem is that adding debug patches can impact performance
(especially when printk() is called frequently). We have CONFIG_KCOV in the
upstream kernels but we don't have something like CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT
in the upstream kernels. If we can assume that kernels built with CONFIG_KCOV=y
are not subjected to performance regression tests, I can try to minimize impact
by guarding with CONFIG_KCOV=y. But if we can't assume, I want a switch like
CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT.

The procedural problem is that developers / maintainers are too busy to respond
to my debug patches. Since I am debugging difficult bugs where nobody else are
willing to spend resources, this is an expected result. I am OK to post my debug
patches to ML. But without responses / interests from developers / maintainers,
this problem won't be able to make progress.

Just saying "Not my business." is not helpful.