Re: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH] libertas: Fix two buffer overflows at parsing bss descriptor

[Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>]

On 11/28/19 2:23 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:29:52PM +0800, Philip Li wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:36:50PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>>>>
>>>> [auto build test WARNING on wireless-drivers-next/master]
>>>> [also build test WARNING on v5.4-rc8 next-20191122]
>>>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
>>>> improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
>>>> base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
>>>>
>>>> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/huangwenabc-gmail-com/libertas-Fix-two-buffer-overflows-at-parsing-bss-descriptor/20191124-142236
>>>> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git master
>>>> config: sh-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
>>>> compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0
>>>> reproduce:
>>>>          wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
>>>>          chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
>>>>          # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>>>          GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=sh
>>>>
>>>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
>>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>>
>>>>     drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c: In function 'lbs_ibss_join_existing':
>>>>>> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c:1788:3: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
>>> I was wondering why I didn't see this mail in patchwork:
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11257187/
>>>
>>> And then I noticed this:
>>>
>>> X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore
>>>
>>> kbuild team, why are you adding that header? It's really bad for a
>> thanks for the feedback, early on we received another feedback to suggest
>> for adding this, refer to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/patchwork-fdo/patchwork-fdo/issues/21
>> for detail. Since there's no further input regarding this usage, we keep
>> that flag. If this is not suitable, we can investigate other way to fullfill
>> both requirements.
>>
> I second Kalle's comment; this is really bad.
>
> Note that the above referenced link suggested to add
> 	X-Patchwork-Hint: comment
> to e-mail headers. Instead, you added:
> 	X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore
> which is substantially different. Also, the problem was with a _patch_
> sent by the robot, not with direct feedback. On top of that, the
> suggestion was really to add "X-Patchwork-Hint: comment" to _patches_
> sent by the robot, not to everything. It should be fine to add
> "X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore" to patches only as long as other feedback
> is still provided and added to patchwork. That should meet all
> requirements.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter

Hi Kalle, Guenter

Thanks so much for your help, we have removed the hint header in build 
report mails and
still keep it in patch mails.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

>
>>> maintainer like me who uses patchwork actively, it means that all these
>>> important warnings are not visible in patchwork and can be easily missed
>>> by the maintainers.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all@lists.01.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave@lists.01.org
> _______________________________________________
> kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all@lists.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave@lists.01.org