Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:15:10 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/191] 5.10.201-rc1 review | From | Guenter Roeck <> |
| |
Hi,
On 11/16/23 17:57, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Guenter Roeck wrote on Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 05:13:39PM -0800: >> Failed builds: >> arm:allmodconfig >> arm64:allmodconfig >> i386:tools/perf >> x86_64:tools/perf > >> This is with v5.10.200-192-g550b7e1fee20. I am a bit puzzled why others >> don't seem to see those problems. > > The perf problem was reported by Florian Fainelli, but my current test > build does not include userspace tools as we're not shipping them (and > would rely on $distro packages when I need perf as a user rather than > building it). > > Likewise, it looks like neither Linaro nor me build the qcom driver... > I'm building kernels that have been trimmed down for our boards (with > that exact config we're shipping and providing for our customers), and > arm* drivers are especially fractured so it's a bit misleading to see > "arm64 pass", that's just the tip of the actual setup tested. > > > (Anyway, the main reason for me is mostly that $job is a small company > that cannot afford extensive upstream testing, so I just don't have the > time to do extended tests -- for the same reason we're only supporting > the 5.10 tree so I'm focusing my limited time on just this branch, even > if I'd love to do more. > I'm just taking the stance that some test is better than no test and > report back things we'd need to test before shipping customers a few > weeks later anyway -- thank you for covering more!) >
Just to clarify, I wasn't assuming or expecting that _everyone_ would report those errors. I was just puzzled that I had not seen _any_ reports, especially since arm:allmodconfig and arm64:allmodconfig both failed to build for me (and I had somehow missed Florian's perf report).
Thanks, Guenter
| |