Re: Policy regarding linux-next only changes

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:46:04PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2026/07/28 2:39, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This really just looks like another case where you (or someone) need to
> > commuicate if something is urgent - I would have a hard time telling
> > from that thread that there's a particularly big problem, the only reply

> That commit says "Drivers triggering this warning must be fixed.". That is,
> they know that it is expected that WARN*() fires. But they don't know that
> syzbot stops upon encountering "BUG:" or "WARNING:" within printk() output.

Right, I think some of this is the difference between "needs to fix
this" and "needs to fix this right now" - WARN_ON()s obviously need to
be fixed, but it's not so obvious that it's a major disruption.

> They also don't know that syzbot builds-in almost all modules into vmlinux.
> That is, initialization functions of most modules are executed upon boot.
> If one of modules emits "BUG:" or "WARNING:" line, the boot fails.

Oh, that *is* surprising - more people tend towards heavily modular
kernels than fully built in ones, I suspect a lot of driver people won't
realise that they're impacting anyone who doesn't have the hardware
since it's not the norm.

> All new bugs which are introduced while syzbot is unable to update linux-next kernels
> are reported only after syzbot succeeded to update linux-next kernels. The "being unable
> to build or boot" caused by addition of WARN*() can break whole testing by syzbot.

Indeed.  I'd suggest following up on the fix with this information to
try to chase things along.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature