Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220321140327.777f9554@canb.auug.org.au> <Yjh11UjDZogc3foM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Yjh3xZuuY3QcZ1Bn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <Yjh4xzSWtvR+vqst@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YjiBbF+K4FKZyn6T@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <YjiZhRelDJeX4dfR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YjidpOZZJkF6aBTG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YjidpOZZJkF6aBTG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:37:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wigO=68WA8aMZnH9o8qRUJQbNJPERosvW82YuScrUTo7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:46 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> This landing in -next only today (after having been committed last
> friday night) is another clue it should probably go next round.

I went and looked at lore to get the context that I didn't get in this
email that I was added to the participants for.

I didn't find the context there either.

Sure, I found the thread, but the whole "that x86 patch" that you
refer to was never actually specified even in the full thread as far
as I can tell. I see that there is an arm64 equivalent too of what you
are complaining about, and I have no idea about that one either..

Mind actually giving the full details so that we don't have to go
re-do the work you already did?

Because right now I know something is wrong, I know the warnings, but
I don't actually have any handle on the actual patches to look out
for.

It's presumably not in any of the pull requests I already have
pending, but it would be nice if I saw some details of _what_ you are
complaining about, and not just the complaint itself ;)

                     Linus