Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Apr 2020 19:32:25 +0800 | From | Jiaxun Yang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] MIPS: Switch to arch_topology |
| |
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:39:08 +0100 Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:49:27 +0800 > Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:24:21 +0800 > > kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jiaxun, > > > > > > I love your patch! Yet something to improve: > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on driver-core/driver-core-testing] > > > [also build test ERROR on pm/linux-next linus/master > > > next-20200411] [cannot apply to tip/perf/core tip/irq/core v5.6] > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a > > > note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use > > > '--base' option to specify the base tree in git format-patch, > > > please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982] > > > > > > url: > > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jiaxun-Yang/MIPS-Topology-DeviceTree-CPU-rework-v2/20200412-113308 > > > base: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git > > > a10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb837467893b4bef01 config: mips-allnoconfig > > > (attached as .config) compiler: mips-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0 > > > reproduce: wget > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross > > > -O ~/bin/make.cross chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross # save the attached > > > .config to linux build tree GCC_VERSION=9.3.0 make.cross > > > ARCH=mips > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> > > > > > > Note: the > > > linux-review/Jiaxun-Yang/MIPS-Topology-DeviceTree-CPU-rework-v2/20200412-113308 > > > HEAD 8e8e9d4f7aa74359f2199773786ffe2fbb7877d0 builds fine. It only > > > hurts bisectibility. > > > > > Hi all, > > > > In this case I think it should be fine to break bisect, otherwise > > #05 will combine too many modifications in different subsystems. > > No. It is never OK to break bisection, specially when it affects a > whole architecture.
I'm going to squash all these into patch #5. It's really hard to do it gradually.
Thanks.
> > We introduce gradual changes over multiple subsystems all the time by > using configuration symbols, no matter the number of patches. Yes, it > is sometimes hard. But breaking the kernel and forcing everyone else > to just deal with it is not acceptable. > > Thanks, > > M. -- Jiaxun Yang
| |