Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:48:11 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>,
        "Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git
Message-ID: <20190819124811.GE5058@ziepe.ca>
References: <09bcafaab07dfde728357bfe61b6a7edfa3b25c9.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAMuHMdWp+g-W0rJtVTWEiJpbhcV7GoSkub11fZPMUbhJcxMUNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190819121400.GA5058@ziepe.ca>
 <CAMuHMdWbG0G8cK-Y0A+STRaJLYzsGHA9V1jJZsjddejxQ-qwcg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWbG0G8cK-Y0A+STRaJLYzsGHA9V1jJZsjddejxQ-qwcg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:08:16PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:00 PM Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Fairly small pull request for -rc3.  I'm out of town the rest of this
> > > > week, so I made sure to clean out as much as possible from patchworks in
> > > > enough time for 0-day to chew through it (Yay! for 0-day being back
> > > > online! :-)).  Jason might send through any emergency stuff that could
> > > > pop up, otherwise I'm back next week.
> > > >
> > > > The only real thing of note is the siw ABI change.  Since we just merged
> > > > siw *this* release, there are no prior kernel releases to maintain
> > > > kernel ABI with.  I told Bernard that if there is anything else about
> > > > the siw ABI he thinks he might want to change before it goes set in
> > > > stone, he should get it in ASAP.  The siw module was around for several
> > > > years outside the kernel tree, and it had to be revamped considerably
> > > > for inclusion upstream, so we are making no attempts to be backward
> > > > compatible with the out of tree version.  Once 5.3 is actually released,
> > > > we will have our baseline ABI to maintain.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > - Allow siw to be built on 32bit arches (siw, ABI change, but OK since
> > > >   siw was just merged this merge window and there is no prior released
> > > >   kernel to maintain compatibility with and we also updated the
> > > >   rdma-core user space package to match)
> > >
> > > > Bernard Metzler (1):
> > > >       RDMA/siw: Change CQ flags from 64->32 bits
> > >
> > > Obviously none of this was ever compiled for a 32-bit platform?!?
> >
> > It is puzzling that 0-day or anyone testing linux-next hasn't noticed
> > this in that last 7 weeks are so..
> 
> Fair enough. The autobuilders have become a bit overloaded lately.
> 
> Still, I would expect a commit that makes a last-minute ABI change to
> enable support for 32-bit platforms, to actually compile cleanly on
> these 32-bit platforms.
> To me, this looks like a big red flag...

Again, I don't know why 0-day didn't report anything. I have success
logs from it saying it compiled a tree including siw on i386
allmodconfig - I don't know why you are seeing 32 bit warnings when
0-day is not reporting anything.

Jason