[Ksummit-discuss] Nominating Fengguang Wu - 0-day

[Guenter Roeck]

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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>