On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > The key here is "if nobody complains". I would argue that it is _your_ > > responsibility to do those builds, and not the reponsibility of others > > to do it for you. > > Testing allmodconfig for a popular architecture, agreed, it is due > diligence to avoid messing -next that day. > > Testing a matrix of configs * arches * gcc/clang * compiler versions? > No, sorry, that is what CI/-next/-rcs are for and that is where the > "if nobody complains" comes from. > > If you think building a set of code for a given arch/config/etc. is > particularly important, then it is _your_ responsibility to build it > once in a while in -next (as you have done). If it is not that > important, somebody will speak up in one -rc. If not, is anyone > actually building that code at all? > > Otherwise, changing core/shared code would be impossible. Please don't > blame the author for making a sensible change that will improve code > quality for everyone. > > > But, sure, your call. Please feel free to ignore my report. > > I'm not ignoring the report, quite the opposite. I am trying to > understand why you think reverting is needed for something that has > been more than a week in -next without any major breakage and still > has a long road to v5.11. Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise it needs to be dropped/reverted. Please fix. thanks, greg k-h
