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 E979492B for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6075C1E7 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:20:49 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: Vinod Koul Message-ID: <20160728132049.GA30540@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> <20160725202343.GJ11405@piout.net> <20160726031007.GH9681@localhost> <1781582.RPTOZ0rvdq@avalon> <20160726085646.GQ9681@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160726085646.GQ9681@localhost> 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 Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:26:46PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:16:40AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Tuesday 26 Jul 2016 08:40:07 Vinod Koul wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:23:43PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> > > On 25/07/2016 at 21:01:25 +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. >> > > >> > > That's a good point. >> > > >> > >> 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. Getting a statistical overview / update of impact / any >> > >> major architectural changes of the 0-day infrastructure would also be >> > >> very useful. 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. >> > >> > I am using it a lot :) >> > >> > > Well, I think it would also help to know how the patch/git tree >> > > selection is done. Lately, I've been receiving less reports from 0-day >> > > and some issues were found by Arnd's autobuilders after hitting >> > > linux-next. I used to get report of compilation breakage 10-15 minutes >> > > after the patch submission. >> >> I second that. 0-day is an amazing tool, but relying on it requires developers >> to trust that the tool will perform its job as expected. A proper >> understanding of the logic behind patch/git tree selection would be very >> valuable, as well as how the build bot handles its 500+ kernel configurations. > >Agreed, although in his report he does mention the tree used, but would be >great if the logic is Documented somewhere. Yeah, sorry the Documentation could be improved. The 600+ git trees 0-day monitors are tracked here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux Thanks, Fengguang