On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:22:41PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:34:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Latency seems like it might be an issue here, when I say I'm not seeing
> > things that's issues coming up in the -next build before they're
> > reported by 0day so they might well get fixed before 0day catches up.

> Ah linux-next happen to have lower priority and can take many hours to
> finish. I'll increase its priority due to its importance.

This was actually things in my trees that get merged into -next (or
which Stephen tries to merge into -next and finds problems with) prior
to being reported by 0day.

> > For me personally it'd be more interesting to be able to get them on
> > demand (eg, from a web page) than e-mailed, or e-mailed by a human
> > (possibly with fixes!).  The kernelci.org reporting does a lot of this
> > but doesn't cover anything except raw compiler warnings.

> It should be mostly equivalent if you direct such emails to a local
> mbox and check it on demand. :)

Well, they don't go away automatically when fixed then...