On 24-09-26 15:06:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/26/24 12:08 PM, Vincent Fu wrote:
> > On 9/26/24 13:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 9/25/24 6:41 PM, Minwoo Im wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/io_u.h b/io_u.h
> >>> index ab93d50f967e..20afad667ee1 100644
> >>> --- a/io_u.h
> >>> +++ b/io_u.h
> >>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ enum {
> >>> IO_U_F_BARRIER = 1 << 6,
> >>> IO_U_F_VER_LIST = 1 << 7,
> >>> IO_U_F_PATTERN_DONE = 1 << 8,
> >>> + IO_U_F_DEVICE_ERROR = 1 << 9,
> >>> };
> >>> /*
> >>
> >> The patches you sent should've been a series, how are they supposed to
> >> both apply when you add an item here for each of them as if the other
> >> one doesn't exist?
> >>
> >> I'll fix it up, but for the future, if patches depend on each other, it
> >> should be a series. Please check if everything works when it's pushed
> >> out, which should be shortly.
> >>
> >> And since I'm on a plane and this doesn't appear to want to send, when
> >> you do see it, please also add HOWTO additions similar to the fio.1
> >> additions you made.
> >>
> >
> > Also, Minwoo, we are seeing some build failures with your patches with
> > compilers rejecting abs(io_u->error) since error is unsigned. Please
> > fix that up as well.
>
> Doh yes, I fixed that up now.
I appreciate for your fix!
>
> > I do have a bot that automatically runs mailing list patches through
> > our CI, but it does not report the results to the list and I am not
> > always quick enough to manually report CI failures:
> >
> > https://github.com/fiotestbot/fio/actions
Vincent,
I will have a look into the CI when I posted patches to the mailing list.
It's super cool to have it.
>
> Send them to the list! It's not like it's a high traffic list, and
> that's super useful. Mostly because it gets the same coverage as a
> github pr then, but also because it'll inform the submitter that there's
> an issue without either you or me letting them now. Hence it saves time
> and cycles, which is a big win in my book.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
