[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191211072233.GB2070@kadam>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:22:33 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Branden Bonaby <brandonbonaby94@...il.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <bobdc9664@...nam.cz>,
Sandro Volery <sandro@...ery.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Valery Ivanov <ivalery111@...il.com>,
Petr Štetiar <ynezz@...e.cz>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:48:49PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:15:15PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 09:46:59PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 01:01:20PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > I have no idea :(
> > >
> > > It's stated in the TODO file you are deleting (visible in your
> > > patch): "This driver is functional and supports Ethernet on
> > > OCTEON+/OCTEON2/OCTEON3 chips at least up to CN7030."
> > >
> > > This includes e.g. some D-Link routers and Uniquiti EdgeRouters. You
> > > can check from /proc/cpuinfo if you are running on this MIPS SoC.
> >
> > It also results in "mips:allmodconfig" build failures in mainline
> > and is for that reason being marked as BROKEN. Unfortunately,
> > misguided attempts to clean it up had the opposite effect.
>
> This was because of stubs hack added by someone - people who do not run
> or care about the hardware can now break it for others with their
> silly x86 "compile test"s.
Compile tests are nice in theory for finding static analysis bugs but
often they introduce static checker false positives because we don't
initialize *param variables in the stub functions.
And those compat stubs in particular were a headache to review. We
broke the build a couple times, but we *almost* broke the build a *lot*
of times...
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists