[PATCH v3] Compiler Attributes: remove CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK
gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Sun Dec 13 16:16:45 CET 2020
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > The key here is "if nobody complains". I would argue that it is _your_
> > responsibility to do those builds, and not the reponsibility of others
> > to do it for you.
> Testing allmodconfig for a popular architecture, agreed, it is due
> diligence to avoid messing -next that day.
> Testing a matrix of configs * arches * gcc/clang * compiler versions?
> No, sorry, that is what CI/-next/-rcs are for and that is where the
> "if nobody complains" comes from.
> If you think building a set of code for a given arch/config/etc. is
> particularly important, then it is _your_ responsibility to build it
> once in a while in -next (as you have done). If it is not that
> important, somebody will speak up in one -rc. If not, is anyone
> actually building that code at all?
> Otherwise, changing core/shared code would be impossible. Please don't
> blame the author for making a sensible change that will improve code
> quality for everyone.
> > But, sure, your call. Please feel free to ignore my report.
> I'm not ignoring the report, quite the opposite. I am trying to
> understand why you think reverting is needed for something that has
> been more than a week in -next without any major breakage and still
> has a long road to v5.11.
Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you
need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise it needs to
More information about the WireGuard