[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151007142823.GI3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:28:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fengguang Wu <lkp@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
josh@...htriplett.org, fweisbec@...il.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
kbuild-all@...org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move
rcu_report_exp_rnp() to allow consolidation
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:21:33PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > How about not building when there's no "^Signed-off-by:" at all?
>
> That's a good idea: no need to test quick demo-of-idea patches.
>
> > Even private build fails for patches like this -- esp. 3+ -- gets
> > annoying real quick.
> >
> > Also note that this 'patch' has: $subject ~ /^Re:/, nor did it have
> > "^Subject:" like headers in the body.
>
> That's good clues, too. So how about make the rule
>
> Skip test if no "^Signed-off-by:" and Subject =~ /^Re:/
>
> For a patch posted inside a discussion thread, as long as it have
> "^Signed-off-by:", I guess the author is serious and the patch could
> be tested seriously.
Works for me; now hoping I will abide by my own suggested rules ;-)
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists