Retrying without HTML. Paolo Il 17 marzo 2024 14:34:02 CET, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >[first time writing to lkml from phone so I hope the formatting isn't too bad] > >Il 17 marzo 2024 11:36:37 CET, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:01:47 +0000, >>Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > You can also make CONFIG_KVM_ARM64_RES_BITS_PARANOIA depend on !COMPILE_TEST. >>> >>> No. >>> >>> WTF is wrong with you? >>> >>> You're saying "let's turn off this compile-time sanity check when >>> we're doing compile testing". >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20240222220349.1889c728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> and you're still trying to just *HIDE* this garbage? >>> >>> Stop it. >> >>Well, if you really need to shout at someone, it should be me, as I >>was the one who didn't get Stephen's hint last time. > >No problem with being shouted at, but "depends on !COMPILE_TEST" is actually something that *is* used for "maintainers will look at it, it shouldn't matter for linux-next compile testing". Most notably it's used for -Werror. > >When Stephen reported the failure, I should have noticed that the bandaid doesn't do anything to fix allyesconfig/allmodconfig. If there's anything I can blame you for, I thought/understood that you would be able to fix the failure between the report and the beginning of the merge window, so there's that small miscommunication but that's it. > >>I'll try to resurrect it as a selftest, or maybe just keep it out of >>tree for my own use. > >I still believe that "depends on !COMPILE_TEST" is what you want here, but yeah keeping out of tree or even under a special make target is an option if Linus disagrees. > >Selftests have the advantage that they can be marked XFAIL, but I am not sure they're a good match here (also because the flip side is that I think XPASS fails the run). > >Paolo Paolo
