From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E30C1975A for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E87820663 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="eeMbBp12" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727720AbgCLO5s (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:57:48 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:56384 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727241AbgCLO5r (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:57:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584025066; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Y9BiE/HHtrwYLPDrEYfMy85B46eYpg1Qlp9PySkGqkw=; b=eeMbBp12T7pIGQBtRO+AQlKzJehT6KOjtYHBTTQa3ePG5YKwMMfZpnEMTcjgMFeZxNE6no hgpY6KSn6VRsf7ACuCKmAK24jw/idlOs8Hzki3dyD7KlVCsD6kNco/3VQBK+joJJqBVBF8 /25eBpcd4Z1yHZ7/3lKG3w6Jjz8yH8w= Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-176-zmg3j9h2PHyF1X7J4fnFmw-1; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:57:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zmg3j9h2PHyF1X7J4fnFmw-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id z13so2741887wrv.7 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y9BiE/HHtrwYLPDrEYfMy85B46eYpg1Qlp9PySkGqkw=; b=KCip+uDmGtQMuMsoCHSpfneDPpFVOhDGVIMuWl5LAJXgayuG5CAENvb3AcEqXMXC1N CMw6kqjbaI0WMq/04sW2DrRTf/IRFRdfIUrTrEJ0GrlG4glx9UBNqTZXV/Ek2VfZ383s +7eqGt1/P49KT7/OwnY2pzIvuRDJOZw4NOugIHDH5fALkcn0DcU05tRKfoGS1ZaNJ/3e 0ULitDt0lncER9+8aLcarqtxIlqqH5z7dd3x9RrMqAD0RzqCAdoplfDzCL/7EvBJ1FO+ fBnK0EQ+cFs5JjX+YvFteHXPMW3d7pkXsNL45nuo+SIbghXZkGDR8Pj3DOa8UnF2qOo+ 2Tgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3g3F0JimUhCd05PvEN+GiJQJaad6i7i5HzyefhQw+VoH/ndCvR ZHUXd8el/sn26M2CjOtmME0CuEzN5Cd0GVU1cZO+4R2Xh7BMIjCbVI+kL5663brA/QsbSqiLS9G 5tMd36SAx2B3voj6K5qokfzSK X-Received: by 2002:adf:e5d2:: with SMTP id a18mr3697470wrn.334.1584025063153; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:57:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vutKOKjAYrJX87oG5W63GUQb+emBV4G27C2zp5/6DHbAwJ9kGIiD1GDP0LQWNnKHvjJ4ObyCg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e5d2:: with SMTP id a18mr3697448wrn.334.1584025062935; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x1.localdomain (2001-1c00-0c0c-fe00-fc7e-fd47-85c1-1ab3.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl. [2001:1c00:c0c:fe00:fc7e:fd47:85c1:1ab3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d1sm13161470wrw.52.2020.03.12.07.57.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Arvind Sankar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20200311214601.18141-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20200311214601.18141-3-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20200312001006.GA170175@rani.riverdale.lan> <3d58e77d-41e5-7927-fe84-4c058015e469@redhat.com> <20200312114225.GB15619@zn.tnic> <899f366e-385d-bafa-9051-4e93dc9ba321@redhat.com> <20200312125032.GC15619@zn.tnic> <8af51d90-27fa-6d2a-2159-ef0a9089453a@redhat.com> <20200312142553.GF15619@zn.tnic> <94c6f903-7dca-503e-aca7-1ee4641bcdac@redhat.com> <20200312144922.GG15619@zn.tnic> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: <69daa857-4dd0-730d-cebd-45c37cc5f66a@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:57:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200312144922.GG15619@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 3/12/20 3:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:38:22PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> So I've send out 2 versions, not 5 not 10, but only 2 versions in >> the past 2 days and you start complaining about me rushing this and >> not fixing it properly, to me that does not come across positive. > > Maybe there's a misunderstanding: when you send a patchset which is not > marked RFC, I read this, as, this patchset is ready for application. But > then the 0day bot catches build errors which means, not ready yet. > > And I believe you expected for the 0day bot to test the patches first > and they should then to be considered for application. Yes, no? I guess this is the root cause of our misunderstanding. I certainly did not expect the 0day bot to catch any issues, because I did not expect there to be any pre-existing issues. As said I wrote the patch because my sha256 changes from a while ago broke the purgatory because of introducing a missing symbol. My intend was to avoid a repeat of that regression by catching issues like this during build time. I did not expect there to already be (more) such issues in the existing code; and I certainly did not expect there to be more then 1 such issue. So having to do v4 to fix one pre-existing issue was a surprise. Having to then do a v5 because there was more then one pre-existing issue was an even bigger surprise. I understand that you are pushing-back against people using 0day bot to find bugs for them and that was never my goal. OTOH I don't appreciate getting push-back because if my change exposing *pre*-existing bugs. I am not responsible for those pre-existing bugs and as such I also do not feel responsible for 0day bot triggering on them. Are the 0day bot reports and the need to rev the patch-set and post a new version annoying? Yes they are; however they are not my fault. Regards, Hans