Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928

From: "Michael Büsch" <m@bues.ch>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: "Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
	"Matt Redfearn" <matt.redfearn@mips.com>,
	"Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 21:30:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180507213043.727cee15@wiggum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874ljj2spt.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2211 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 May 2018 22:03:58 +0300
Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> Michael Büsch <m@bues.ch> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500
> > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> 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
> v4.17.

Uhm, can you just type git revert 882164a4a928? :)
Or do I have to send you a pull request?

> > 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
patch.
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.

> But as ssb has had two major regressions recently I'm going to
> significantly raise the bar for ssb patches, and will refuse to apply
> random patches if they have not been tested with b43/b44.

Thanks.

-- 
Michael

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]