Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: octeon: delete driver

Guenter Roeck
2020-02-05T13:52:55Z

On 2/5/20 1:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:57 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/20 7:34 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:31:16PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:06:14PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 07:09 +0000, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:02:15AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 10:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>> My advice is to delete all the COMPILE_TEST code. That stuff was a
>>>>>> constant source of confusion and headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also going to suggest this. Since the COMPILE_TEST has been a
>>>>> source of trouble I was going to propose dropping the || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>> from the Kconfig for the octeon drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Not having it also causes problems. I didn't originally add it for
>>>> shits and giggles.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the kbuild bot does enough cross compile build testing these
>>> days to detect compile problems. It might have improved to the point
>>> where COMPILE_TEST isn't required.
>
> It depends...
>
>> Not really. Looking at the build failures in the mainline kernel right now:
>>
>> Failed builds:
>> alpha:allmodconfig
>> arm:allmodconfig
>> i386:allyesconfig
>> i386:allmodconfig
>> m68k:allmodconfig
>> microblaze:mmu_defconfig
>> mips:allmodconfig
>> parisc:allmodconfig
>> powerpc:allmodconfig
>> s390:allmodconfig
>> sparc64:allmodconfig
>
> I did receive a report from noreply@ellerman.id.au for the m68k build
> failure. But that was sent to me only, not to the offender, and I do my
> own builds anyway.
>
> More interesting, that report happened after the offending commit landed
> upstream, while it had been in next for 4 weeks.
>

m68k in -next builds fine for me, and did for a while. I have not seen a build
failure there. There must be a context commit causing this failure, or what
is (or was) in -next differs from what is in mainline.

>> Many of those don't even _have_ specific configurations causing the build failures.
>
> Exactly. These are the "easy" ones, as the all*config builds enable as
> much infrastructure as possible. It's much harder if some common
> dependency is not fulfilled in some specific config.
>

Yes, that is correct. But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea
to retire COMPILE_TEST.

Guenter