Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/191] 5.10.201-rc1 review

Guenter Roeck
2023-11-17T15:15:18Z

Hi,

On 11/16/23 17:57, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Guenter Roeck wrote on Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 05:13:39PM -0800:
>> Failed builds:
>> arm:allmodconfig
>> arm64:allmodconfig
>> i386:tools/perf
>> x86_64:tools/perf
>
>> This is with v5.10.200-192-g550b7e1fee20. I am a bit puzzled why others
>> don't seem to see those problems.
>
> The perf problem was reported by Florian Fainelli, but my current test
> build does not include userspace tools as we're not shipping them (and
> would rely on $distro packages when I need perf as a user rather than
> building it).
>
> Likewise, it looks like neither Linaro nor me build the qcom driver...
> I'm building kernels that have been trimmed down for our boards (with
> that exact config we're shipping and providing for our customers), and
> arm* drivers are especially fractured so it's a bit misleading to see
> "arm64 pass", that's just the tip of the actual setup tested.
>
>
> (Anyway, the main reason for me is mostly that $job is a small company
> that cannot afford extensive upstream testing, so I just don't have the
> time to do extended tests -- for the same reason we're only supporting
> the 5.10 tree so I'm focusing my limited time on just this branch, even
> if I'd love to do more.
> I'm just taking the stance that some test is better than no test and
> report back things we'd need to test before shipping customers a few
> weeks later anyway -- thank you for covering more!)
>

Just to clarify, I wasn't assuming or expecting that _everyone_ would report
those errors. I was just puzzled that I had not seen _any_ reports, especially
since arm:allmodconfig and arm64:allmodconfig both failed to build for me
(and I had somehow missed Florian's perf report).

Thanks,
Guenter