On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:34 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ...which I just put down to random breakage, turned off the umh and > continued on my way (ignoring the failed test). Until you wrote this I > did not suspect this would be something I needed to pay attention to. > Now that you did mention it, I'll obviously go investigate some more, my > point is just that in this instance it's not accurate to assume I just > didn't run the tests... :) Ignoring failures is the same as not running them. I expect all developers to confirm that they see "0 FAILED" before sending any patches. > > > I think I will just start marking patches as changes-requested when I see that > > they break tests without replying and without reviewing. > > Please respect reviewer's time. > > That is completely fine if the tests are working in the first place. And > even when they're not (like in this case), pointing it out is fine, and > I'll obviously go investigate. But please at least reply to the email, > not all of us watch patchwork regularly. Please see Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst. patchwork status is the way we communicate the intent. If the patch is not in the queue it won't be acted upon.
