On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:27 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Nobody has argued that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: "So I > think we can fix them as they come.". > > I am expecting Masahiro to follow up. It has been less than 24 hours > since the report, on a weekend. > > Cheers, > Miguel Sorry for the delay. Now I sent out the fix for lantiq_etop.c https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1355595/ The reason of the complication was I was trying to merge the following patch in the same development cycle: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/20201117104736.24997-1-olaf@xxxxxxxxx/ -Werror=return-type gives a bigger impact because any instance of __must_check violation results in build breakage. So, I just dropped it from my tree (and, I will aim for 5.12). The removal of CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK is less impactive, because we are still able to build with some warnings. Tomorrow's linux-next should be OK and, you can send my patch in this merge window. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
