On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 13:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > v2: low the tone of accusation that this made a regression
>
> BTW., don't worry about that aspect too much: after a long debugging
> session it's
> pretty natural to be upset at whoever introduced a regression.
It appears that regression has been introduced by a new dependency to
the hci_bcm.c.
In any case, can we apply this one to 4.15 cycle to make others prevent
do an actual regressions further:
commit 03838ae1e8f692dd2bdbd49820ed668d4b7bfbc2
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Jan 5 13:26:44 2018 +1100
arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c: fix const
confusion
>
> ( In fact a number of times I too got upset at the moron who wrote a
> particular
> piece of buggy code, only for 'git annotate' to remind me that the
> moron was me. )
>
> I personally just ignore the emotional attributes, and I usually edit
> changelogs
> accordingly as well so the temporary state of mind of finding a
> regression doesn't
> trickle upstream.
>
> Plus in this particular case if we can help type propagation for
> driver data to
> become a bit cleaner then the kernel project has gained a bit through
> all this
> pain.
I has been thinking if 0day can complain about these:
1) castings in new code
2) applying const to older *working* code
Fengguang, what do you think?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
