On 8/21/20 4:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:09 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I had to look for that, because it obviously didn't complain for me. >> Looks like it's the one in drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c which changes >> from PTR_ERR() to using 'err' which is indeed an int. > > You clearly didn't even build the patch you applied. > > You can claim it's some odd uninteresting file, but then you damn well > shouldn't have applied the patch if you can't even be bothered to > compile-test it. > > It really is that simple - this is not some odd configuration that has > a build problem because it's esoteric. That file *will* warn if you > compile it. I don't think you can avoid it. > > So it's literally a patch that cannot have been build-tested AT ALL. > > I don't see why you even make excuses for it. I'm not trying to make excuses. Should it have been compiled? Yes it should. Did I miss it because it isn't part of my regular testing? Yes obviously. Did I assume it was probably fine since multiple people reviewed it, including the maintainer. Definitely. That doesn't excuse the fact that it was missed, and it should not have been. The tree is totally warning clean right now on build, but that's usually not the case, and missing a single warning isn't that hard. It happens! I think faulting someone severely for missing a mostly harmless warning in a driver that can't be considered critical or tier 1 is a little out there. That's all I'm trying to say. And FWIW, this isn't some frivolous cleanup patch, it's fixing a real error handling issue. > Send me the fixes part of the pull, no new features, and no untested > garbage. There are no new features in here! The only patch I'd argue you could object to is the raw deprecation, which should have gone in for -rc1. I'm happy to drop that, was only trying to make the deprecation period a bit longer for it. The majority is pure fixes, and there are a few cleanups in there that just seem silly to defer when they show up. You're making this sound like it's some pile of garbage, and frankly I think that's way out of line. > And no, I'm not your test build server that you send crap to and then > when I notice it was broken you try to fix it up. > > So it's your choice. If you want to let it simmer in linux-next for > better testing and sending it to me for 5.10, I guess that's a choice > too. > > But I'm very very fed up with people sending me stuff that they didn't > care enough to even check for warnings for. And no, I don't want to > get some minimal fixup. I want a clean tree. Right, and it totally shows since once the beaker flows over, then some rando gets the wrath. Your delivery sucks, and you need to work on that. This could have been handled so much better. I'll rebase and re-test, but it'll be after -rc2. -- Jens Axboe
