4:01 p.m.
Greetings,
0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
Author: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
Commit: 0day robot <fengguang.wu(a)intel.com>
CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
x86: Optimize clear_page()
Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
chosen by the alternatives.
What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
significant changes in performance.
...
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
+------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| | 10b9dd5686 | 0ad07c8104 | 648de4be23 |
+------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| boot_successes | 66 | 0 | 0 |
| boot_failures | 0 | 26 | 17 |
| BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel | 0 | 26 | 17 |
| Oops | 0 | 26 | 17 |
| RIP:prep_new_page | 0 | 26 | |
| calltrace:netlink_proto_init | 0 | 26 | |
| Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception | 0 | 26 | 17 |
+------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
[ 0.665715] xor: using function: prefetch64-sse (14670.000 MB/sec)
[ 0.667274] prandom: seed boundary self test passed
[ 0.669099] prandom: 100 self tests passed
[ 0.673854] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040
[ 0.675772] IP: [<ffffffff8115be9a>] prep_new_page+0x14a/0x270
[ 0.681170] PGD 0
[ 0.681639]
[ 0.682043] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT
[ 0.682875] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.9.0-rc6-00134-g0ad07c8 #1
[ 0.684716] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.9.3-20161025_171302-gandalf 04/01/2014
[ 0.690535] task: ffff8800000636c0 task.stack: ffffc90000008000
[ 0.691962] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8115be9a>] [<ffffffff8115be9a>]
prep_new_page+0x14a/0x270
[ 0.697990] RSP: 0000:ffffc9000000b9b8 EFLAGS: 00010202
[ 0.699265] RAX: 0000000000000040 RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 0000000000000001
[ 0.701046] RDX: ffff8800000636c0 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff880000161000
[ 0.706074] RBP: ffffc9000000ba58 R08: ffff8800000636c0 R09: ffff880000000000
[ 0.707771] R10: ffff88001ffd0000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88001d921800
[ 0.713599] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 000000000240c0c0 R15: 0000000000000001
[ 0.715285] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff82034000(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 0.717232] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 0.718611] CR2: 0000000000000040 CR3: 0000000002010000 CR4: 00000000000006b0
[ 0.720361] Stack:
[ 0.720908] ffffffff82138d80 0000000000000000 ffffc9000000ba38 0000000000000206
[ 0.722748] ffff88001d921800 ffffffff00000000 dead000000000100 0000000000000206
[ 0.724654] ffff880000000000 0000000000000046 0000000000000001 ffffffff82138d80
[ 0.726502] Call Trace:
[ 0.727118] [<ffffffff8115c3f5>] get_page_from_freelist+0x435/0x7f0
[ 0.728744] [<ffffffff81033e6c>] ? T.555+0x5c/0x70
[ 0.729944] [<ffffffff81033e6c>] ? T.555+0x5c/0x70
[ 0.731105] [<ffffffff81882085>] ? ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30
[ 0.732450] [<ffffffff81033eb6>] ? unwind_next_frame+0x36/0x50
[ 0.733880] [<ffffffff81024204>] ? __save_stack_trace+0x84/0x150
[ 0.735328] [<ffffffff8115ca35>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1a5/0xd50
[ 0.736933] [<ffffffff81024375>] ? save_stack_trace+0x15/0x20
[ 0.738322] [<ffffffff810edb6d>] ? __lock_acquire+0x2fd/0x4b0
[ 0.739733] [<ffffffff8187d529>] ? mutex_unlock+0x9/0x10
[ 0.741075] [<ffffffff8187d3db>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xdb/0x180
[ 0.742632] [<ffffffff811776ac>] kmalloc_order+0x1c/0x70
[ 0.743940] [<ffffffff82191c4a>] netlink_proto_init+0x39/0x18a
[ 0.745356] [<ffffffff811e9644>] ? kern_mount_data+0x14/0x30
[ 0.746754] [<ffffffff82191c11>] ? netlink_net_init+0x2e/0x2e
[ 0.748139] [<ffffffff821469af>] do_one_initcall+0x86/0x11f
[ 0.749542] [<ffffffff82146be2>] do_basic_setup+0xa8/0xcb
[ 0.753869] [<ffffffff82146d84>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x17f/0x17f
[ 0.755410] [<ffffffff82146d04>] kernel_init_freeable+0xff/0x17f
[ 0.756899] [<ffffffff818762c9>] ? kernel_init+0x9/0x100
[ 0.758189] [<ffffffff818762c0>] ? rest_init+0xc0/0xc0
[ 0.759447] [<ffffffff818762c0>] ? rest_init+0xc0/0xc0
[ 0.760732] [<ffffffff818762c9>] kernel_init+0x9/0x100
[ 0.761949] [<ffffffff81882085>] ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30
[ 0.763272] Code: db 7e be 4c 8b 04 25 00 30 03 82 4c 89 e0 31 c9 49 b9 00 00 00 00 00
88 ff ff 4c 89 c2 ff 05 82 71 ed 00 41 83 80 e8 0e 00 00 01 <48> 8b 30 48 c1 ee 2d
48 89 f7 48 c1 ef 07 4c 8b 14 fd a0 d3 c1
[ 0.769249] RIP [<ffffffff8115be9a>] prep_new_page+0x14a/0x270
[ 0.770683] RSP <ffffc9000000b9b8>
[ 0.771527] CR2: 0000000000000040
[ 0.772317] ---[ end trace e69a76b01b566199 ]---
[ 0.773471] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
git bisect start 648de4be2364cf3a02404e043d76926e43e561e8
d5adbfcd5f7bcc6fa58a41c5c5ada0e5c826ce2c --
git bisect good f08b53c27c5d6c8b83792ed94a8e9694ef9f3b67 # 01:13 21+ 0 Merge
'linux-review/Thomas-Garnier/syscalls-Restore-address-limit-after-a-syscall/20170210-065105'
into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect bad 09edec8d0905916acd6206dc0411d1da27f203d9 # 01:28 0- 4 Merge
'bp/for-next' into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect bad 013fb7dbee2050def11e2180abcb6958d0a5867c # 01:35 0- 2 Merge
'robh/of-graph-helpers' into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect good 9c7fb1ac8023b3c30daca6890b85605d924da1ad # 01:46 21+ 0 Merge
'linux-review/Colin-King/Smack-fix-a-dereference-before-null-check-on-sock-sk/20170210-055729'
into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect bad 6ef54f0002c76068d65d01a3b51ce07b6f347235 # 01:58 0- 3 Merge
'linux-review/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052' into
devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect good 11dfb62ce4afb2111de9cfa25b8566a093c40975 # 02:08 21+ 1 Merge
'linux-review/Ben-Gardner/eeprom-at24-use-device_property_-functions-instead-of-of_get_property/20170210-060909'
into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect good 79a6fed9048002031fa4f9050e2ceabc0f746ae6 # 02:40 22+ 0 Merge
'linux-review/Avraham-Shukron/staging-omap4iss-fix-multiline-comment-style/20170210-050947'
into devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect bad 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc # 03:00 0- 3 x86:
Optimize clear_page()
# first bad commit: [0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc] x86: Optimize clear_page()
git bisect good 10b9dd56860e93f11cd352e8c75a33357b80b70b # 03:17 66+ 0 Merge
tag 'nfs-for-4.9-4' of git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/anna/linux-nfs
# extra tests with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_REDUCED
git bisect bad 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc # 03:31 0- 14 x86:
Optimize clear_page()
# extra tests on HEAD of linux-devel/devel-spot-201702101332
git bisect bad 648de4be2364cf3a02404e043d76926e43e561e8 # 03:31 0- 17 0day
head guard for 'devel-spot-201702101332'
# extra tests on tree/branch
linux-review/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
git bisect bad 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc # 03:38 0- 26 x86:
Optimize clear_page()
# extra tests with first bad commit reverted
git bisect good d9d04c9a587a9963e6df6b6b6622cd0eaa0a6d2a # 03:56 61+ 0 Revert
"x86: Optimize clear_page()"
# extra tests on tree/branch linus/master
git bisect good 2fe1e8a7b2f4dcac3fcb07ff06b0ae7396201fd6 # 04:09 65+ 0 Merge
tag 'powerpc-4.10-5' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux
# extra tests on tree/branch linux-next/master
git bisect good 4ce4a759a3e221b5265ebd03c2f8888b69a7cf3e # 04:41 61+ 0 Add
linux-next specific files for 20170217
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp Intel Corporation
1:48 a.m.
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Greetings,
0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
Can you make this point to the actual commit on github?
Your tree there has currently 47K branches and navigating through the
web interface takes forever.
commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
Author: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
Commit: 0day robot <fengguang.wu(a)intel.com>
CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
x86: Optimize clear_page()
Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
chosen by the alternatives.
What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
significant changes in performance.
...
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
Then, this is an old patch. You already sent me a bug report, I replied
with a fix but you didn't test the fix. Instead you're sending the same
old report.
Here's the fix: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2017-February/005573.html
And the upstream submission of the new version:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170215111927.emdgxf2pide3kwro@pd.tnic
Please fix the bot to pay attention to replies. If there is a special
way I should reply with a fix so that the bot retests with the same
config, please let me know.
In general, I think it would be a very cool idea to be able to reply to
the bot and say, "Dear bot, can you test this fix ontop with the exact
same guest, vm, kernel .config etc.
That would be lovely.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG
Nürnberg)
--
10:29 a.m.
Hi Borislav,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
Can you make this point to the actual commit on github?
Your tree there has currently 47K branches and navigating through the
web interface takes forever.
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
showed as this in future:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-cle...
> commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
> Author: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
> AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
> Commit: 0day robot <fengguang.wu(a)intel.com>
> CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
>
> x86: Optimize clear_page()
>
> Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
> chosen by the alternatives.
>
> What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
> was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
>
> Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
> significant changes in performance.
>
> ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)suse.de>
Then, this is an old patch. You already sent me a bug report, I replied
with a fix but you didn't test the fix. Instead you're sending the same
old report.
Sorry the 2nd report was send out manually and I only checked the
emails in my _current_ mbox. Since the previous report email has been
archived, it slipped through the duplication check.
Here's the fix:
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2017-February/005573.html
And the upstream submission of the new version:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170215111927.emdgxf2pide3kwro@pd.tnic
Please fix the bot to pay attention to replies. If there is a special
way I should reply with a fix so that the bot retests with the same
config, please let me know.
CC Xiaolong. It's possible to automate the test-of-fixup-patches.
Firstly find out the original email report by the Message-ID being
replied to. Then fetch all the information required for deciding where
the patch should be applied to, parameters to auto-testing the patch.
In general, I think it would be a very cool idea to be able to reply
to
the bot and say, "Dear bot, can you test this fix ontop with the exact
same guest, vm, kernel .config etc.
That would be lovely.
Yeah we have a TODO to do email based on-demand service, which looks
close to your proposal.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Fengguang
11:10 a.m.
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll
be
showed as this in future:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-cle...
How about pointing to the patch directly?
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc6571...
Sorry the 2nd report was send out manually and I only checked the
emails in my _current_ mbox. Since the previous report email has been
archived, it slipped through the duplication check.
No worries - this was all a prelude to me hinting at the email-based
talking to the bot :-)
CC Xiaolong. It's possible to automate the
test-of-fixup-patches.
Firstly find out the original email report by the Message-ID being
replied to. Then fetch all the information required for deciding where
the patch should be applied to, parameters to auto-testing the patch.
Sounds like a plan.
It would probably even be easier for the bot if the reply-mail contained
specially-formatted hints like:
TEST-WITH-BELOW-PATCH: ...
or so.
Btw, another nice aspect of this talking back to the bot is that before
I, as a recipient of the bug report, go and try to prepare a guest or
find a machine to reproduce properly, I can send a quick diff to the bot
in the meantime and say, "try this on the guest. I have a hunch it might
fix it."
Yeah we have a TODO to do email based on-demand service, which looks
close to your proposal.
Cool. Ping me if you need testers.
Thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG
Nürnberg)
--
12:06 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 01:10:47AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
> showed as this in future:
>
>
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-cle...
How about pointing to the patch directly?
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc6571...
Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
> Sorry the 2nd report was send out manually and I only checked
the
> emails in my _current_ mbox. Since the previous report email has been
> archived, it slipped through the duplication check.
No worries - this was all a prelude to me hinting at the email-based
talking to the bot :-)
> CC Xiaolong. It's possible to automate the test-of-fixup-patches.
> Firstly find out the original email report by the Message-ID being
> replied to. Then fetch all the information required for deciding where
> the patch should be applied to, parameters to auto-testing the patch.
Sounds like a plan.
It would probably even be easier for the bot if the reply-mail contained
specially-formatted hints like:
TEST-WITH-BELOW-PATCH: ...
or so.
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.
Btw, another nice aspect of this talking back to the bot is that
before
I, as a recipient of the bug report, go and try to prepare a guest or
find a machine to reproduce properly, I can send a quick diff to the bot
in the meantime and say, "try this on the guest. I have a hunch it might
fix it."
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
> Yeah we have a TODO to do email based on-demand service, which
looks
> close to your proposal.
Cool. Ping me if you need testers.
Thanks!
Thanks,
Fengguang
12:50 a.m.
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.
Right.
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.
Makes sense.
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.
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
lot.
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:
base-commit: linus/master
arch: x86_64, powerpc, sparc, ...
Would be very useful too.
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.
Thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG
Nürnberg)
--
2:03 p.m.
Hi Borislav,
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.
Right.
> 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.
Makes sense.
> 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
document under
https://github.com/fengguang/lkp-tests/tree/master/doc
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
lot.
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:
base-commit: linus/master
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
notification).
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!
Regards,
Fengguang
8:35 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03:52AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
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.
Can I specify multiple base commits for testing stable backports?
For example
base-commit: v4.9.11, v4.4.50, v3.10.105,...
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
notification).
Yap, similar to those you guys sent when a new branch on k.org has been
tested.
Btw, can we make the format layout this way:
patch
---
<0day bot tags>
---
so that when we send it to lkml, it doesn't interfere with review by
slapping the tags at the beginning of the patch?
Also, should we CC some special mailing list which the 0day bot parses
or lkml is enough?
Cool stuff.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG
Nürnberg)
--
11 a.m.
New subject: email/patch test requests to 0day robot
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03:52AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> 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.
Can I specify multiple base commits for testing stable backports?
For example
base-commit: v4.9.11, v4.4.50, v3.10.105,...
That's reasonable and useful form. BTW for stable testing, it could
be more convenient to specify the branch names:
stable/linux-4.9.y
stable/linux-4.4.y
stable/linux-3.10.y
There is also the RC stable tree available:
linux-stable-rc/linux-4.9.y
linux-stable-rc/linux-4.4.y
BTW it looks a bit inconsistent about the tree names "stable" and
"linux-stable-rc". These are the current names the robot refer to each
git tree:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/...
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/...
I could rename the latter to "stable-rc" if no other opinions.
> 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
> notification).
Yap, similar to those you guys sent when a new branch on k.org has been
tested.
Yes.
Btw, can we make the format layout this way:
patch
---
<0day bot tags>
---
so that when we send it to lkml, it doesn't interfere with review by
slapping the tags at the beginning of the patch?
Sure. In fact we currently search for the tags in the whole email body.
Also, should we CC some special mailing list which the 0day bot
parses
or lkml is enough?
There are dozens of mailing lists monitored, so the CC could grow too
large to look "normal". So I changed the email subject to make it more
obvious to people.
Cool stuff.
Thank you!
Fengguang
2035
days inactive
2038
days old
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Borislav Petkov -
Fengguang Wu