Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:48:31PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every >> > codepath in pathname resolution. Is there any way to sic the bots on >> > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"? >> >> Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the >> kbuild bots. Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots. >> >> I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code. > > Build bots are generally nice, but in this case... pretty much all of > the changes are in fs/namei.c, which is not all that sensitive to > config/architecture/whatnot. Sure, something like "is audit enabled?" > may affect the build problems, but not much beyond that. > > What was that Intel-run(?) bot that posts "such-and-such metrics has > 42% regression on such-and-such commit" from time to time? > <checks> > Subject: [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement > seems to be the latest of that sort, > From: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@xxxxxxxxx> > > Not sure how much of pathwalk-heavy loads is covered by profiling > bots of that sort, unfortunately... ;-/ Do the xfs-tests cover that sort of thing? The emphasis is stress testing the filesystem not the VFS but there is a lot of overlap between the two. Eric
