On Mon, 07 May 2018 22:03:58 +0300 Kalle Valo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Büsch <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500 > > Larry Finger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Although commit 882164a4a928 ("ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in > >> module") appeared to be harmless, it leads to complete failure of drivers > >> b43. > > > >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE > >> bool > >> - depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y > >> + depends on SSB_PCIHOST && (SSB = y || !MIPS) > >> default y > >> > >> config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10161131/ > > > > Could we _please_ switch to not applying patches to ssb or b43, if > > nobody acked (or better reviewed) a patch? > > > > We had multiple changes to ssb and b43 in the recent past that did not > > have a review at all and broke something. I don't think such software > > quality is acceptable at all. > > So please revert 882164a4a928. > > Yes, someone please send a revert so that this can be fixed quickly for > v4.17. Uhm, can you just type git revert 882164a4a928? :) Or do I have to send you a pull request? > > I'm sorry that this patch slipped through the cracks of my inbox. > > But the reaction to that shall not be to just apply the patch. It > > shall be to resubmit it for review. > > The thing is that in general I do not have time to ping people for every > patch, I get enough of emails as is. If there are no review comments I > have to assume the patch is ok to apply. Yes, I understand that pinging people can be annoying and time consuming. But we have tools like patchwork. Why isn't pinging (semi)automated? Patchwork should really track the review status of a patch. I think the concept of no-comments = everything-ok is fundamentally broken. But it has always been that way for wireless and lots of other subsystems. > But as ssb has had two major regressions recently I'm going to > significantly raise the bar for ssb patches, and will refuse to apply > random patches if they have not been tested with b43/b44. Thanks. -- Michael
pgpGjhf5m7m1i.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
