Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols

[Hans de Goede]

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