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 1E008951 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FAF22D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:41:14 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Message-ID: <20160727144114.GA2273@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Nominating Fengguang Wu - 0-day List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:01:25PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >It surprises Fengguang Wu hasn't been nominated yet, >so I'd like to nominate him. The mechanical process should probably include in >the future a scrape for top Reported-by contributors. Thanks for your appreciations, Luis! >Fengguang's 0-day infrastructure is invaluable to day to day kernel >development, having him present would be great for any questions that may come >up. I'd be glad to answer questions and more importantly, collect feedbacks on where and how to improve the 0-day infrastructure. There are 2 major parts in 0-day: build tests and runtime tests. While build tests will be continuously improved, there may be a lot more to be desired for runtime tests, which should be my main focus in the coming year. >Getting a statistical overview / update of impact / any major architectural >changes of the 0-day infrastructure would also be very useful. Sure if there are interests. >If maintainers >are not yet using 0-day it would be great to hear why. If your contributors are >not using 0-day (I know some of you exist) I'd like to know why you don't use it, >I often run into issues on linux-next which at times I have to fix, if 0-day >would have been used a folowup fix would not have been needed. 0-day tries to monitor as many git trees as possible, so that fresh code can be tested before they land maintainer trees and linux-next. To achieve better early code coverage, we periodically check if there are new git trees showing up in git.kernel.org, in mainline git log or mentioned in LKML emails. And add the newly discovered ones unsolicited. :) That said, it's still possible errors hit linux-next. Sometimes it may be due to bug in 0-day or temporarily out of service. The solution would be to improve 0-day system's stability and add more self-tests to the system. Quick feedbacks about build/boot errors missed by 0-day would also be highly appreciated. Thanks, Fengguang