On 11/28/19 2:23 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
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
Hi Kalle, Guenter
Thanks so much for your help, we have removed the hint header in build
report mails and
still keep it in patch mails.
Best Regards,
Rong Chen
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
_______________________________________________
kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxx
