On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
> Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if we
> can work w/o any rules -- unless you want to be accurate&helpful or to
> customize test behaviors.
> Since we already tested the original patch/commit (hence the report),
> we should know where the fixup should be applied to. And it'd be
> reasonably easy to tell whether the fix is incremental or a
> replacement -- just try git-am onto the original commit first, if
> failed, continue to try the parent commit. For old bugs the fix could
> be against linus/master or linux-next/master, which could be tried too.
> Yes, that'd be most convenient. In general the email interface could
> be something like this:
> # "key: value" fields; if you Re: to an earlier bug report, they can
be auto retrieved
> compiler: gcc-6 # optional
> base-commit: v4.10-rc8 # the robot knows kernel commits from hundreds of
public git trees
> the patch
> attach kconfig files
Yap, just stick those rules somewhere on a website.
OK, will do when the feature is ready. According to Xiaolong, the
automated test-of-fixup-patches feature is already in our plan.
For introductions of the now-working build/boot test services and
instructions on customization, we could probably add some markdown
Philip/Ying, what do you think? I can draft it.
Btw, this is not only useful for a follow-on, fix patch but also for
initial test request. For example, I want to backport patch to stable
and would like to run it on a bunch of kernels:
base-commit: v4.4-stable, v4.9-stable, ...
i.e., a list of trees to apply it to. I believe people might like this a
Or, for example, a patch touching a bunch of arches and author doesn't
necessarily have access to all those different toolchains. Shoot a mail
to the 0day bot:
arch: x86_64, powerpc, sparc, ...
Would be very useful too.
We actually already test LKML patch in that way (Xiaolong maintains
this feature). Nevertheless if developers specify "base-commit:" it
could help eliminate the guessing works by the dumb robot. We'll
appreciate if the "base-commit:" or "base-patchid:" tags are listed
in the patches, especially in some non-obvious situations.
Such tags could be regarded as "explicit" test requests, where we could
send "BUILD COMPLETE" emails as a response (comparing to our normal
LKML patch tests, which only build regressions will trigger an email
Anyway, just a couple of ideas.
What would also be cool if you guys had a 0day bot howto with all those
things we should pay attention to and we can go and look up.
OK. Your ideas are very welcome, thanks!