On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:29:52PM +0800, Philip Li wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:36:50PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > > kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on wireless-drivers-next/master] > > > [also build test WARNING on v5.4-rc8 next-20191122] > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help > > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the > > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982] > > > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/huangwenabc-gmail-com/libertas-Fix-two-buffer-overflows-at-parsing-bss-descriptor/20191124-142236 > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git master > > > config: sh-allmodconfig (attached as .config) > > > compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0 > > > reproduce: > > > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross > > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=sh > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c: In function 'lbs_ibss_join_existing': > > >>> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c:1788:3: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > > > > I was wondering why I didn't see this mail in patchwork: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11257187/ > > > > And then I noticed this: > > > > X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore > > > > kbuild team, why are you adding that header? It's really bad for a > thanks for the feedback, early on we received another feedback to suggest > for adding this, refer to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/patchwork-fdo/patchwork-fdo/issues/21 > for detail. Since there's no further input regarding this usage, we keep > that flag. If this is not suitable, we can investigate other way to fullfill > both requirements. > I second Kalle's comment; this is really bad. Note that the above referenced link suggested to add X-Patchwork-Hint: comment to e-mail headers. Instead, you added: X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore which is substantially different. Also, the problem was with a _patch_ sent by the robot, not with direct feedback. On top of that, the suggestion was really to add "X-Patchwork-Hint: comment" to _patches_ sent by the robot, not to everything. It should be fine to add "X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore" to patches only as long as other feedback is still provided and added to patchwork. That should meet all requirements. Thanks, Guenter > > maintainer like me who uses patchwork actively, it means that all these > > important warnings are not visible in patchwork and can be easily missed > > by the maintainers. > > > > -- > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches > > _______________________________________________ > > kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxx
