linux-kernel - Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 18:23:41 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     "airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Nikula, Jani" <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200
>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements
>>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not how things work.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you
>>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted.
>>>
>>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it.
>>
>> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report
>> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and
>> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its
>> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real
>> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this
>> regression just can't be fixed already.
>
> And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is
> less work than making several postings such as this one.

I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the
regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix
it on their own?

Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and
unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not
really move anywhere.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch