Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/27/26 8:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 08:39:16AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/27/26 8:16 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> possibly interacting with some rust change but I'm not sure.  I have
>>> used the tree from next-20260526 instead.
> 
>> Hmm, not sure we should let rust build issues gate whether a tree is
>> current in -next or not. For, by far, most systems, it's not a
>> requirement for a functional device.
> 
> That's also true for a huge proportion of the issues that get caught
> with an allmodconfig, and allnoconfig is not exactly a realistic
> configuration either.

While that is true, the big difference here is that everybody should
build allmodconfig themselves, but only a (much) smaller subset of those
have rust enabled/available.

> that come up in people's coverage tests.  TBH the rust stuff originally
> got turned on because I ran the allmodconfig on a machine that happened
> to have a usable rustc installed, I was intending to enable it at some
> point anyway.

I think it's good to have coverage, but I think it should be more of the
notification variety than a gating factor. For this particular time and
branch it didn't matter, but sometimes I shove things in there that I
absolutely need a quick test turn-around on. For exposure reasons. And
getting a -next cycle delay on that would be unfortunate, and I think
also unwarranted if the only issue is that the rust build broke.

Does highlight that apparently my build no longer does rust builds,
which it did used to... Something to look into on my end.

Not trying to start a debate, just voicing my opinion on the matter :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe