On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:58:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Friday, October 29, 2021, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:52:26AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:09:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > [I am not sure why this error only popped up after I merged Andrew's > > > > patch set ...] > > > > > > > > > Also I think that next time you can use some older version of the > > for-next branch instead of making the whole subsystem depend on BROKEN. > > This causes much more harm in the testing setups that suddenly can't > > work at all, compared to testing a few days older branch. > > The Linux Next reflects current state of affairs and marking something > which is definitely broken as BROCKEN is what I expect as a developer who > tests some other stuff on top of broken code. I'd argue against using the big 'depdends BROKEN' hammer as much as possible, surely not for linux-next. Normaly the BROKEN status is earned after known unfixed breakage for subsystems where nobody cares. If code is buggy and causes crashes when testing linux-next, that's something we want to see, not "no test results at all". Can you imagine all compilation breakages in linux-next get resolved by BROKEN? I know Stephen is capable of fixing various compilation problems by himself and given the whole-tree scope it's heroic efforts, leaving the shortcuts for the rest. In this case the fix may not be obvious so I'd understand not merging my for-next branch at all or merging a stub like the latest rc instead, ie. resolving that on the integration level and not touching the config or code itself.
