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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if
 purgatory.ro has missing symbols
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200311214601.18141-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <20200311214601.18141-3-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <20200312001006.GA170175@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <3d58e77d-41e5-7927-fe84-4c058015e469@redhat.com>
 <20200312114225.GB15619@zn.tnic>
 <899f366e-385d-bafa-9051-4e93dc9ba321@redhat.com>
 <20200312125032.GC15619@zn.tnic>
 <8af51d90-27fa-6d2a-2159-ef0a9089453a@redhat.com>
 <20200312142553.GF15619@zn.tnic>
 <94c6f903-7dca-503e-aca7-1ee4641bcdac@redhat.com>
 <20200312144922.GG15619@zn.tnic>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <69daa857-4dd0-730d-cebd-45c37cc5f66a@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:57:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200312144922.GG15619@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 3/12/20 3:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:38:22PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> So I've send out 2 versions, not 5 not 10, but only 2 versions in
>> the past 2 days and you start complaining about me rushing this and
>> not fixing it properly, to me that does not come across positive.
> 
> Maybe there's a misunderstanding: when you send a patchset which is not
> marked RFC, I read this, as, this patchset is ready for application. But
> then the 0day bot catches build errors which means, not ready yet.
> 
> And I believe you expected for the 0day bot to test the patches first
> and they should then to be considered for application. Yes, no?

I guess this is the root cause of our misunderstanding. I certainly
did not expect the 0day bot to catch any issues, because I did not
expect there to be any pre-existing issues.

As said I wrote the patch because my sha256 changes from a while ago
broke the purgatory because of introducing a missing symbol. My intend
was to avoid a repeat of that regression by catching issues like this
during build time.  I did not expect there to already be (more)
such issues in the existing code; and I certainly did not expect
there to be more then 1 such issue.

So having to do v4 to fix one pre-existing issue was a surprise.
Having to then do a v5 because there was more then one pre-existing
issue was an even bigger surprise.

I understand that you are pushing-back against people using 0day bot
to find bugs for them and that was never my goal.

OTOH I don't appreciate getting push-back because if my change
exposing *pre*-existing bugs. I am not responsible for those
pre-existing bugs and as such I also do not feel responsible for
0day bot triggering on them. Are the 0day bot reports and the need
to rev the patch-set and post a new version annoying? Yes they are;
however they are not my fault.

Regards,

Hans