Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

From	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix
Date	2017-05-31 18:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tNeFt-7az-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tN597-16T-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tN597-16T-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tN597-16T-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNdq2-6tw-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200
>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements
>>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not how things work.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you
>>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted.
>>>
>>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it.
>>
>> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report
>> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and
>> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its
>> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real
>> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this
>> regression just can't be fixed already.
>
> And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is
> less work than making several postings such as this one.

I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the
regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix
it on their own?

Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and
unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not
really move anywhere.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> - 2017-05-31 08:20 +0200
  Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-05-31 17:10 +0200
    [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> - 2017-05-31 17:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if  __e1000_shutdown fails David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-06-02 20:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if  __e1000_shutdown fails Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> - 2017-06-06 22:50 +0200
          RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze  if __e1000_shutdown fails "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> - 2017-06-07 03:10 +0200
      Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if  __e1000_shutdown fails "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@intel.com> - 2017-06-05 07:30 +0200
    Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> - 2017-05-31 17:50 +0200
    Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> - 2017-05-31 18:30 +0200

csiph-web