linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:57:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <69daa857-4dd0-730d-cebd-45c37cc5f66a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312144922.GG15619@zn.tnic>

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


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-12 14:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-11 21:45 [PATCH v4 0/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols Hans de Goede
2020-03-11 21:46 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/purgatory: Fix missing ftrace_likely_update symbol Hans de Goede
2020-03-11 21:46 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols Hans de Goede
2020-03-12  0:10   ` Arvind Sankar
2020-03-12 11:31     ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-12 11:42       ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-12 11:58         ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-12 12:50           ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-12 13:34             ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-12 14:25               ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-12 14:38                 ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-12 14:49                   ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-12 14:57                     ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-03-12 15:12                       ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-13  4:42             ` Arvind Sankar
2020-03-13  4:58               ` Arvind Sankar
2020-03-13  5:15                 ` Arvind Sankar
2020-03-16 18:52                 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-03-13 10:47               ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-13 18:06               ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-12 17:46     ` Hans de Goede
2020-03-12 18:23       ` Arvind Sankar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=69daa857-4dd0-730d-cebd-45c37cc5f66a@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).