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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 EDA50C43387 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 09:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8D72184E for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 09:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="cikA1iQy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729134AbeL2JSL (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:18:11 -0500 Received: from mail-it1-f177.google.com ([209.85.166.177]:40549 "EHLO mail-it1-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725913AbeL2JSL (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:18:11 -0500 Received: by mail-it1-f177.google.com with SMTP id h193so29449826ita.5 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 01:18:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XLkqG3nKcd0lTsqiWLlqAWjPHPJTG5QkaExKzZNJIQQ=; b=cikA1iQyu/ElwFNIcKp6x3njQ+21za/IdwN9/TWcy4YtWYsw3rtw2UlWHeEnzYIRVl uS03VYntlBat/fOJjfTEBUqYv4x6S/NawTSU99ox32X+4C+4HnlN/N5BOMxdBlimrBpe wgOKVtxnmbE35E90cv597ZE2ldQTfk0CjmxU8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XLkqG3nKcd0lTsqiWLlqAWjPHPJTG5QkaExKzZNJIQQ=; b=nC5Zx2QvfysfFXMJPBthb1nEEDYMYlO+HtFZxcTRUNiTK5DMCyq85A/QfaaHRk/JhK gF5ibl27oSQptnCkqXdk4WjhbEiYwxytPKxZqVUl63+0qYMdPx9FymVWe867QIifYSF/ IrTzAdTB8rJufI1Zc+4i03Vh384A8PcOutYFtIP1fu0UzPsEGf16hCDRr+ZKQcm4+kvE oLOE7cgXSH9olMx0JmCzmh7mVA8WO5x2xu0sxSqDStosKNHzryPNfrYrowwAXXRSIw78 d0Z2O0UmYWVRbfwRdbrdb1nH45KGbDQ+DK1sjRem1IBcH4m5QHKYLMPEYKU/ACIQmQMQ DJ9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbK+pZuBYnN5ZL8fPqLZFpS8RvbsPlyBgm1eY+WNXvDfGn92gwO /BhdCxLrEkvbT+e7IlY1IDNWV/Z76ho//K75uxmMQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VdgZ6uJMg3u74ZS49D4rnRTJiBWbcr2UDALfLGoZf36WFiM3iMcGvFT0QnGY53/0hlliQ355LRfC/vU3Rb9v4= X-Received: by 2002:a24:edc4:: with SMTP id r187mr21614405ith.158.1546075090440; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 01:18:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181226023534.64048-1-cai@lca.pw> <403405f1-b702-2feb-4616-35fc3dc3133e@lca.pw> <20181227190456.0f21d511ef71f1b455403f2a@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20181227190456.0f21d511ef71f1b455403f2a@linux-foundation.org> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm] efi: drop kmemleak_ignore() for page allocator To: Andrew Morton Cc: Qian Cai , Ingo Molnar , Catalin Marinas , Linux-MM , linux-efi , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 04:04, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:31:59 +0100 Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > Please stop sending EFI patches if you can't be bothered to > > test/reproduce against the EFI tree. > > um, sorry, but that's a bit strong. Finding (let alone fixing) a bug > in EFI is a great contribution (thanks!) and the EFI maintainers are > perfectly capable of reviewing and testing the proposed fix. Or of > fixing the bug by other means. > Qian did spot some issues recently, which was really helpful. But I really think that reporting all issues you find against the -mmotm tree because that happens to be your preferred tree for development is not the correct approach. > Let's not beat people up for helping us in a less-than-perfect way, no? Fair enough. But asking people to ensure that an issue they found actually exists on the subsystem tree in question is not that much to ask, is it?