Hi David, On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:09 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. OK, this was a pain because the error did not show up until late in the day (something in Andrew's patch series exposed the problem - note my report was sent at 9:09 PM - my day starts about 7:30 AM). This is after I had merged maybe 150-200 tress in top of yours. My choices are few at that point (you don't expect me to remerge all those trees, right?). Almost all errors I see are immediately after I merge a tree, at which point my usual response is to reset my tree to before the merge and then merge the previous day's version of the tree. Generally, I do not fix build errors unless they are caused by an interaction between 2 trees. Given that I had spent some time to figure out what the problem was, I expected a fix to be done pretty soon, so the easiest way I could continue was to just mark btrfs broken and continue on (I still had another hour to go before I was finished (my days get really long just before Linus does a release :-( ). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpCPhvW9u9JU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
