From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754474AbbJGO21 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:28:27 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59299 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754449AbbJGO20 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:28:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:28:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Fengguang Wu <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, oleg@redhat.com,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, kbuild-all@01.org,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, bobby prani <bobby.prani@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move
 rcu_report_exp_rnp() to allow consolidation
Message-ID: <20151007142823.GI3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151007115046.GK11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <201510072021.GNkjQ4uR%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
 <20151007121751.GG17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151007134432.GA15834@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
 <20151007135529.GG3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151007142133.GA18322@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151007142133.GA18322@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:21:33PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > How about not building when there's no "^Signed-off-by:" at all?
> 
> That's a good idea: no need to test quick demo-of-idea patches.
> 
> > Even private build fails for patches like this -- esp. 3+ -- gets
> > annoying real quick.
> > 
> > Also note that this 'patch' has: $subject ~ /^Re:/, nor did it have
> > "^Subject:" like headers in the body.
> 
> That's good clues, too. So how about make the rule
> 
>         Skip test if no "^Signed-off-by:" and Subject =~ /^Re:/
> 
> For a patch posted inside a discussion thread, as long as it have
> "^Signed-off-by:", I guess the author is serious and the patch could
> be tested seriously.

Works for me; now hoping I will abide by my own suggested rules ;-)

Thanks!