From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3367BB6 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39670AA for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:02:35 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20150712020235.GB24356@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <559C73DF.2030008@roeck-us.net> <20150708114011.3a1f1861@noble> <2879113.fraeuJIr2M@avalon> <20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150709201127.GA3426@cloud> <20150709203830.GF7021@wotan.suse.de> <20150709210059.GA3720@cloud> <1436518482.2393.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1436518482.2393.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:54:42AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 14:00 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:38:30PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:11:27PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > Bonus if this is also wired into the 0day bot, so that you also find out > > > > if you introduce a new warning or error. > > > > > > No reason to make bots do stupid work, if we really wanted to consider > > > this a bit more seriously the pipeline could be: > > > > > > mailing-list | coccinelle coccicheck| smatch | sparse | 0-day-bot > > > > That would effectively make the bot duplicate part of 0-day. Seems > > easier to have some way to tell 0-day "if you see obvious procedural > > issues, don't bother with full-scale testing, just reject". > > We already have this with the 0 day project. The only difference being > the patch has to be in a tree for it to get tested. It's not impossible > to imagine a bot that would pick up a patch, apply it (giving automated > rejects as email replies), and leave it in for the 0 day tests to > assess ... sort of like patchwork but with an automated tree build. We > could periodically throw away the tree (say weekly) because the job of > the bot would be to find initial rejects rather than build a workable > tree. That's a good point. Up to now 0-day only takes care of code in git trees. We've collected 500+ developers' git trees so far, however their coverage looks not enough -- there are 3000+ kernel developers in last year's git log. To achieve 100% code coverage, we'll also need to watch emails in the kernel mailing lists, auto convert patch series there to git branches for 0-day and other testers, and auto reply results to the original mailing list's email thread. That would be a natural fit for the email based patch submission path and review process. The potential problem, however, is "git-am to which base branch?" That's where it may go messy. Thanks, Fengguang