From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60573) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRMKH-00059q-0d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 14:41:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRMKD-0006y9-Nc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 14:41:29 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:50904 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRMKD-0006xp-IB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 14:41:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 21:41:21 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20180608204402-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20180607223111.27792-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180607223111.27792-2-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180608020724-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5352d2fb-9244-78b0-4f4b-2818359a4425@redhat.com> <20180608190040-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180608192148-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <74b8eaa6-841f-1e35-654f-ba0243970958@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74b8eaa6-841f-1e35-654f-ba0243970958@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH 2/5] acpi: "make check" should fail on asl mismatch List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Peter Maydell , Eduardo Habkost , linux-nvdimm , Qemu Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Igor Mammedov , Ross Zwisler , Dan Williams On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 07:23:06PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08.06.2018 18:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 05:16:30PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 8 June 2018 at 17:03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> Pull requests are somewhat different, they are usually tested for lack > >>> of warnings. This change didn't arrive as a result of a pull request > >>> maybe that's why it slipped through the cracks. Peter? > >>> > >>> Maybe we need a "pedantic" flag to fail on any warnings, or just catch > >>> output to stderr. > >> > >> If there's a situation that shouldn't exist in the tree (ie > >> a bug), then make check should catch it, and result in a > >> failure, not just printing random stuff to stderr. Otherwise > >> I'm not going to notice it, whether I'm applying a pull request > >> or an individual patch. > >> > >> thanks > >> -- PMM > > > > It's ok if it happens, but it just makes debugging and reviewing > > ACPI patches a little bit harder until it's fixed. > > It's maybe ok for *you*, but this certainly confuses everybody else. If > I want to check my patches and suddenly some strange warnings are > popping up, I first assume that there is something wrong in my patches > (since I assume that the git repository is clean by default). So I've > got to waste my time debugging issues that are not my own. Thanks for > that :-/ > > Thomas Right so normally these do not pop out at all as I fix expected with a patch on top. -- MST