Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: re-enable gcc + rust builds

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2202 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:46:01PM +0800, Asuna wrote:
> On 9/10/25 10:27 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > FWIW, this --- breaks git, and anything after this line (including your
> > signoff) is lost when the patch is applied.
> 
> I used b4 command to prepare and send the cover letter and patch for v2, not
> sure what happened.

Dunno. Maybe while editing your commit message you omitted the signoff
somehow? I don't use b4-submit, so I don't know how it formats stuff. If
it inserted the --- and what was below it was your intended cover
letter, your patch itself might be missing the signoff?
> 
> I see that other people's patches have a [PATCH 0/n] email as a start that
> describes their patch series, this is called a cover-letter in b4 and
> git-send-email right?

Yes it is. Not really needed if you only have one patch though.

> > The riscv patchwork CI stuff is really unhappy with this change:
> > init/Kconfig:87: syntax error
> > init/Kconfig:87: invalid statement
> > init/Kconfig:88: invalid statement
> > init/Kconfig:89:warning: ignoring unsupported character '`'
> > init/Kconfig:89:warning: ignoring unsupported character '`'
> > init/Kconfig:89:warning: ignoring unsupported character '.'
> > init/Kconfig:89: unknown statement "This"
> > 
> > Is this bogus, or can rustc-bindgen-libclang-version return nothing
> > under some conditions where rust is not available?
> > Should this have 2 default lines like some other options in the file?
> 
> This is because rustc-bindgen-libclang-version can't find the bindgen and
> returns nothing. Sorry I forgot to mention this, it's another reason why I
> wanted to separate the script, in a separate script we can easily fallback
> to return 0 when an error is encountered.
> 
> Adding a second line `default 0` doesn't work, I'll try to fix it. BTW, when
> I fix it, if the diff isn't too large, do I need to open a v3 patch, or
> simply replying to the thread just fine?

Feel free to reply with the diff if you're looking to discuss the
implantation, but for the sake of the various bits of automation
(patchwork, ci bots etc) please submit a v3 when you're happy with what
you've produced.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]