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 9C8C371 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:24:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E401ED for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:24:57 +0000 (UTC) To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Fengguang Wu References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> <5486315.Z6uhQZYKqJ@avalon> <20160728205324.GB5642@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <2443703.ScQNYO34Bz@avalon> <20160728230713.GB18980@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160728233327.GC3296@wotan.suse.de> <20160729000912.GA17232@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160730170556.GR3296@wotan.suse.de> From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <579CE2DF.1080607@roeck-us.net> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:24:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160730170556.GR3296@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Vegard Nossum , 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 07/30/2016 10:05 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:09:12AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 01:33:27AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:07:13AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >>>> btw, maybe some maintainers are already informed: 0-day statistics >>>> show that ~60% errors can be reported in 2 hours, ~90% errors are >>>> reported in 24 hours and there are 1% errors reported after 1 week. >>> >>> If one were to take 0-day code an slap it on some internal big-iron >>> server, and prioritize work for a few developers (say SUSE would do >>> this for its developers) do you expect the turnaround time for >>> reports would be faster if we had bigger-meaner hardware ? These >>> days actually would like to get results back in a few minutes >>> for 90% of errors so wondering how / if others have taken on >>> 0-day internally and made it faster by beefing up the hardware. >> >> I'd suspect roughly the same timing given powerful servers but still >> with reasonable cost considerations. > > Interesting, thanks. Let's say I still want to, where is the code? > >> Intel pretty values the 0-day service and backs it up with 12 parallel >> build servers, including 4 4S Xeon machines. Since we do merged tests, >> one may assume most of the servers are working parallel for his code >> whenever he does a git push. Kernel hackers can feel free to push >> frequently because the extra pushes are virtually cost free -- the >> build workers are working cyclicly on latest merged code anyway. > > Awesome thanks! I recently ran into the situation where I may have > run into what seems to be a binutils (ld) bug and I want to verify > if it is only associated to an odd-ball architecture, I have 2 kconfig > entries I know I want tested on all architectures. In the future it If you let me know what those are, I should be able to run them through my build system. Guenter > may be nice to be able to suggest a given set of kconfig entires one > wants as base for all architectures. This may need something like > kconfig-sat though [0]. > > [0] https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/kconfig-sat > >> To take free ride of that restless horse, it'd be good to push small >> topic branches on latest RC kernels, which will have better chances >> to merge and play well with others code. > > How about linux-next ? > > Luis > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >