Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200
>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> 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