Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
	"devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
	"brandonbonaby94@gmail.com" <brandonbonaby94@gmail.com>,
	"julia.lawall@lip6.fr" <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	"yuehaibing@huawei.com" <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	"paulburton@kernel.org" <paulburton@kernel.org>,
	"aaro.koskinen@iki.fi" <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"fw@strlen.de" <fw@strlen.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ddaney@caviumnetworks.com" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
	"bobdc9664@seznam.cz" <bobdc9664@seznam.cz>,
	"sandro@volery.com" <sandro@volery.com>,
	"ivalery111@gmail.com" <ivalery111@gmail.com>,
	"ynezz@true.cz" <ynezz@true.cz>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"wambui.karugax@gmail.com" <wambui.karugax@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 05:52:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd09609d-d504-9a9e-453e-6b0ef66e6211@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXKtJEvwRViRpy4nHbxv68P_rCFWbpikw=BMM5XnBvD2A@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/20 1:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:57 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/20 7:34 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:31:16PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:06:14PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 07:09 +0000, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:02:15AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 10:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>> My advice is to delete all the COMPILE_TEST code.  That stuff was a
>>>>>> constant source of confusion and headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also going to suggest this. Since the COMPILE_TEST has been a
>>>>> source of trouble I was going to propose dropping the || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>> from the Kconfig for the octeon drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Not having it also causes problems.  I didn't originally add it for
>>>> shits and giggles.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the kbuild bot does enough cross compile build testing these
>>> days to detect compile problems.  It might have improved to the point
>>> where COMPILE_TEST isn't required.
> 
> It depends...
> 
>> Not really. Looking at the build failures in the mainline kernel right now:
>>
>> Failed builds:
>>          alpha:allmodconfig
>>          arm:allmodconfig
>>          i386:allyesconfig
>>          i386:allmodconfig
>>          m68k:allmodconfig
>>          microblaze:mmu_defconfig
>>          mips:allmodconfig
>>          parisc:allmodconfig
>>          powerpc:allmodconfig
>>          s390:allmodconfig
>>          sparc64:allmodconfig
> 
> I did receive a report from noreply@ellerman.id.au for the m68k build
> failure. But that was sent to me only, not to the offender, and I do my
> own builds anyway.
> 
> More interesting, that report happened after the offending commit landed
> upstream, while it had been in next for 4 weeks.
> 

m68k in -next builds fine for me, and did for a while. I have not seen a build
failure there. There must be a context commit causing this failure, or what
is (or was) in -next differs from what is in mainline.

>> Many of those don't even _have_ specific configurations causing the build failures.
> 
> Exactly. These are the "easy" ones, as the all*config builds enable as
> much infrastructure as possible.  It's much harder if some common
> dependency is not fulfilled in some specific config.
> 

Yes, that is correct. But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea
to retire COMPILE_TEST.

Guenter