From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6936345529515892333=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [oliver.sang@intel.com: [cpumask] b9a7ecc71f: WARNING:at_include/linux/cpumask.h:#__is_kernel_percpu_address]
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 09:20:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiK5wyj58x3uvt+otsO9=79N13OO6Nf57DFVYO=QX==ig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YzeclACdH9JmaRza@yury-laptop>
List-Id: <oe-lkp.lists.linux.dev>

--===============6936345529515892333==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 6:51 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The commit  b9a7ecc71fe582e ("cpumask: fix checking valid cpu range")
> fixes broken cpumask_check(), which for now doesn't warn user when it
> should. After the fix, I observed many false-positive warnings which
> were addressed in the following patches.

Are all the false positives fixed?

I suspect that to avoid any automation noise, you should just rebase
so that the fixes come first. Otherwise we'll end up wasting a lot of
time on the noise.

This is not that different from introducing new buil;d-time warnings:
the things they point out need to be fixed before the warning can be
integrated, or it causes bisection problems.

                  Linus
--===============6936345529515892333==--