6:23 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:29:52PM +0800, Philip Li wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:36:50PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> kbuild test robot <lkp(a)intel.com> writes:
>
> > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on wireless-drivers-next/master]
> > [also build test WARNING on v5.4-rc8 next-20191122]
> > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to
specify the
> > base tree in git format-patch, please see
https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> >
> > url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/huangwenabc-gmail-com/libertas-F...
> > base:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-ne... master
> > config: sh-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> > compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0
> > reproduce:
> > wget
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
> > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=sh
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp(a)intel.com>
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c: In function
'lbs_ibss_join_existing':
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/cfg.c:1788:3: warning: ISO C90
forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
>
> I was wondering why I didn't see this mail in patchwork:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11257187/
>
> And then I noticed this:
>
> X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore
>
> kbuild team, why are you adding that header? It's really bad for a
thanks for the feedback, early on we received another feedback to suggest
for adding this, refer to
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/patchwork-fdo/patchwork-fdo/issues/21
for detail. Since there's no further input regarding this usage, we keep
that flag. If this is not suitable, we can investigate other way to fullfill
both requirements.
I second Kalle's comment; this is really bad.
Note that the above referenced link suggested to add
X-Patchwork-Hint: comment
to e-mail headers. Instead, you added:
X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore
which is substantially different. Also, the problem was with a _patch_
sent by the robot, not with direct feedback. On top of that, the
suggestion was really to add "X-Patchwork-Hint: comment" to _patches_
sent by the robot, not to everything. It should be fine to add
"X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore" to patches only as long as other feedback
is still provided and added to patchwork. That should meet all
requirements.
Thanks,
Guenter
> > maintainer like me who uses patchwork actively, it means that all these
> > important warnings are not visible in patchwork and can be easily missed
> > by the maintainers.
> >
> > --
> > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpa...
> > _______________________________________________
> > kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave(a)lists.01.org