* Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here's some history: > The day of -rc1, multiple people immediately reported the breakage; it was > quickly found out that reverting 784d5699eddc fixes it. A "going forward" > patch has been posted but was insufficient; when the real devs went to bed > the last message was > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1250370.html > which ends with instructions and "Care to do a patch for x86?". > > Then a random person (me) did the legwork, gathered affected symbols, wrote > and tested the x86 patch. It was then tested by multiple people; Arnd > Bergmann wrote the ARM equivalent. Whenever a new lkml thread reporting the > breakage popped up, we pointed people to the patches and everyone was happy. > As for upstreaming, there was a delay because Michal Marek was on vacation. > > Michal returned and sent you the pull request, you merged it as 04e36857 on > Nov 18. For some reason the per-arch pieces were excluded; I was instructed > to send my part to x86 maintainers. > > I did so; the patch later got a better description by Nick and a bunch of > Tested-by -- but alas, nary a comment or action from x86 guys, despite > pings/resends (last one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/23/706). I guess I'm > lacking the secret handshake or something -- thus, it looks like it's my > fault, the rest of you can be blamed mostly for letting a > not-a-real-kernel-dev unsupervised. My part of the story is easy to explain: the reason I skipped the 11/23 patch was because it was tagged 'kbuild' and because the commit that broke it was never acked by (or was upstreamed via) the x86 maintainers - we never upstreamed any modversions changes in the past AFAIR - so I assumed it would be handled via whatever path got the breakage upstream (turns out it was via the VFS tree?), or via the kbuild tree. > On Nov 24 finally Ingo responded, the discussion ended with you marking > modversions as BROKEN. Yeah, that was when my internal timer ran out: modversions breakage was reported against -rc1 already and it still wasn't working (a seemingly working kernel build resulted in an unbootable system) - due to the timeline and confusion you explained. I totally agree with marking it BROKEN: it was the simplest, most robust way to fix it and nobody seemed to be owning the modversions feature. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
