On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>>> >>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>>> >>>>> That's not how things work. >>>>> >>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >>> >>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. >> >> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report >> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and >> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its >> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real >> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this >> regression just can't be fixed already. > > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix it on their own? Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not really move anywhere. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
