linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver

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]

Message-ID: <dd09609d-d504-9a9e-453e-6b0ef66e6211@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 05:52:50 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "brandonbonaby94@...il.com" <brandonbonaby94@...il.com>,
        "julia.lawall@...6.fr" <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        "yuehaibing@...wei.com" <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        "paulburton@...nel.org" <paulburton@...nel.org>,
        "aaro.koskinen@....fi" <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ddaney@...iumnetworks.com" <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
        "bobdc9664@...nam.cz" <bobdc9664@...nam.cz>,
        "sandro@...ery.com" <sandro@...ery.com>,
        "ivalery111@...il.com" <ivalery111@...il.com>,
        "ynezz@...e.cz" <ynezz@...e.cz>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "wambui.karugax@...il.com" <wambui.karugax@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver

On 2/5/20 1:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:57 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/20 7:34 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:31:16PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:06:14PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 07:09 +0000, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:02:15AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 10:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>> My advice is to delete all the COMPILE_TEST code.  That stuff was a
>>>>>> constant source of confusion and headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also going to suggest this. Since the COMPILE_TEST has been a
>>>>> source of trouble I was going to propose dropping the || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>> from the Kconfig for the octeon drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Not having it also causes problems.  I didn't originally add it for
>>>> shits and giggles.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the kbuild bot does enough cross compile build testing these
>>> days to detect compile problems.  It might have improved to the point
>>> where COMPILE_TEST isn't required.
> 
> It depends...
> 
>> Not really. Looking at the build failures in the mainline kernel right now:
>>
>> Failed builds:
>>          alpha:allmodconfig
>>          arm:allmodconfig
>>          i386:allyesconfig
>>          i386:allmodconfig
>>          m68k:allmodconfig
>>          microblaze:mmu_defconfig
>>          mips:allmodconfig
>>          parisc:allmodconfig
>>          powerpc:allmodconfig
>>          s390:allmodconfig
>>          sparc64:allmodconfig
> 
> I did receive a report from noreply@...erman.id.au for the m68k build
> failure. But that was sent to me only, not to the offender, and I do my
> own builds anyway.
> 
> More interesting, that report happened after the offending commit landed
> upstream, while it had been in next for 4 weeks.
> 

m68k in -next builds fine for me, and did for a while. I have not seen a build
failure there. There must be a context commit causing this failure, or what
is (or was) in -next differs from what is in mainline.

>> Many of those don't even _have_ specific configurations causing the build failures.
> 
> Exactly. These are the "easy" ones, as the all*config builds enable as
> much infrastructure as possible.  It's much harder if some common
> dependency is not fulfilled in some specific config.
> 

Yes, that is correct. But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea
to retire COMPILE_TEST.

Guenter