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 B96D983D for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B62236 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:15:06 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Fengguang Wu Message-ID: <20160728171506.GA23015@roeck-us.net> References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> <20160727144114.GA2273@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160727144114.GA2273@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Cc: dvyukov@google.com, 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 Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:41:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > 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. > For runtime test improvements: We should discuss if and how to integrate kasan/syzkaller testing, and/or if it would make sense to set up a separate test bed for that purpose (to avoid overloading 0day). Thanks, Guenter > >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 > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss