Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928
From: Kalle Valo
Date: Wed May 09 2018 - 06:03:43 EST
Michael BÃsch <m@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 07 May 2018 22:03:58 +0300
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Michael BÃsch <m@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500
>> > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Although commit 882164a4a928 ("ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in
>> >> module") appeared to be harmless, it leads to complete failure of drivers b43.
>> >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE
>> >> bool
>> >> - depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y
>> >> + depends on SSB_PCIHOST && (SSB = y || !MIPS)
>> >> default y
>> >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE
>> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10161131/
>> > Could we _please_ switch to not applying patches to ssb or b43, if
>> > nobody acked (or better reviewed) a patch?
>> > We had multiple changes to ssb and b43 in the recent past that did not
>> > have a review at all and broke something. I don't think such software
>> > quality is acceptable at all.
>> > So please revert 882164a4a928.
>> Yes, someone please send a revert so that this can be fixed quickly for
> Uhm, can you just type git revert 882164a4a928? :)
But it needs a proper commit log explaining why it's reverted (links to
bugzilla report etc). And I prefer also reverts to be reviewed on the
> Or do I have to send you a pull request?
A revert is a regular commit, so you can submit it using git
format-patch and git send-email.
>> > I'm sorry that this patch slipped through the cracks of my inbox.
>> > But the reaction to that shall not be to just apply the patch. It
>> > shall be to resubmit it for review.
>> The thing is that in general I do not have time to ping people for every
>> patch, I get enough of emails as is. If there are no review comments I
>> have to assume the patch is ok to apply.
> Yes, I understand that pinging people can be annoying and time
> consuming. But we have tools like patchwork. Why isn't pinging
> (semi)automated? Patchwork should really track the review status of a
That would be awesome but patchwork is nowhere near that kind of
sophistication. I like it but to be honest it's really simple at the
moment. My custom client script has a simple way to ping about patches
but even that is too much work on the long run. Some people do send Acks
to the driver they maintain but not always, I guess because too busy
with real life or something which is totally understandable. But it
would not scale at all if I would start pinging for the 25% of patches
that they have not acked.
> I think the concept of no-comments = everything-ok is
> fundamentally broken. But it has always been that way for wireless and
> lots of other subsystems.
It's a balance between bureaucracy and getting things done. From my POV
the only viable solution is that maintainers actively follow the patches
on the mailing list.