On Mon, 07 May 2018 22:03:58 +0300
Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500
> > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Although commit 882164a4a928 ("ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in
> >> module") appeared to be harmless, it leads to complete failure of drivers b43.
> >
> >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE
> >> bool
> >> - depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y
> >> + depends on SSB_PCIHOST && (SSB = y || !MIPS)
> >> default y
> >>
> >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE
> >
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10161131/
> >
> > Could we _please_ switch to not applying patches to ssb or b43, if
> > nobody acked (or better reviewed) a patch?
> >
> > We had multiple changes to ssb and b43 in the recent past that did not
> > have a review at all and broke something. I don't think such software
> > quality is acceptable at all.
> > So please revert 882164a4a928.
>
> Yes, someone please send a revert so that this can be fixed quickly for
> v4.17.
Uhm, can you just type git revert 882164a4a928? :)
Or do I have to send you a pull request?
> > I'm sorry that this patch slipped through the cracks of my inbox.
> > But the reaction to that shall not be to just apply the patch. It
> > shall be to resubmit it for review.
>
> The thing is that in general I do not have time to ping people for every
> patch, I get enough of emails as is. If there are no review comments I
> have to assume the patch is ok to apply.
Yes, I understand that pinging people can be annoying and time
consuming. But we have tools like patchwork. Why isn't pinging
(semi)automated? Patchwork should really track the review status of a
patch.
I think the concept of no-comments = everything-ok is
fundamentally broken. But it has always been that way for wireless and
lots of other subsystems.
> But as ssb has had two major regressions recently I'm going to
> significantly raise the bar for ssb patches, and will refuse to apply
> random patches if they have not been tested with b43/b44.
Thanks.
--
Michael
Attachment:
pgpo3J825sV9G.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
