Message ID | 20250407231746.2316518-1-sean.anderson@linux.dev (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add PCS core support | expand |
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:17:31 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote: > This series depends on [1,2], and they have been included at the > beginning so CI will run. However, I expect them to be reviewed/applied > outside the net-next tree. These appear to break the build: drivers/acpi/property.c:1669:39: error: initialization of ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ from incompatible pointer type ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, unsigned int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 1669 | .get_reference_args = acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args, \ Could you post as RFC until we can actually merge this? I'm worried some sleep deprived maintainer may miss the note in the cover letter and just apply it all to net-next..
On 4/8/25 10:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:17:31 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote: >> This series depends on [1,2], and they have been included at the >> beginning so CI will run. However, I expect them to be reviewed/applied >> outside the net-next tree. > > These appear to break the build: > > drivers/acpi/property.c:1669:39: error: initialization of ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ from incompatible pointer type ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, unsigned int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > 1669 | .get_reference_args = acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args, \ > > Could you post as RFC until we can actually merge this? I'm worried > some sleep deprived maintainer may miss the note in the cover letter > and just apply it all to net-next.. I would really like to keep RFC off the titles since some reviewers don't pay attention to RFC series. Would [DO NOT MERGE] in the subject be OK? --Sean
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:30:43 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote: > > These appear to break the build: > > > > drivers/acpi/property.c:1669:39: error: initialization of ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ from incompatible pointer type ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, unsigned int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > > 1669 | .get_reference_args = acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args, \ > > > > Could you post as RFC until we can actually merge this? I'm worried > > some sleep deprived maintainer may miss the note in the cover letter > > and just apply it all to net-next.. > > I would really like to keep RFC off the titles since some reviewers don't > pay attention to RFC series. > > Would [DO NOT MERGE] in the subject be OK? That works too.
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:30:43AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 4/8/25 10:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:17:31 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote: > >> This series depends on [1,2], and they have been included at the > >> beginning so CI will run. However, I expect them to be reviewed/applied > >> outside the net-next tree. > > > > These appear to break the build: > > > > drivers/acpi/property.c:1669:39: error: initialization of ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ from incompatible pointer type ‘int (*)(const struct fwnode_handle *, const char *, const char *, unsigned int, unsigned int, struct fwnode_reference_args *)’ [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > > 1669 | .get_reference_args = acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args, \ > > > > Could you post as RFC until we can actually merge this? I'm worried > > some sleep deprived maintainer may miss the note in the cover letter > > and just apply it all to net-next.. > > I would really like to keep RFC off the titles since some reviewers don't > pay attention to RFC series. > > Would [DO NOT MERGE] in the subject be OK? I'd bet that those who have decided "RFC means the patch series is not ready" will take such a notice to also mean the same, and ignore it. I think there needs to be some kind of push-back against these maintainers who explicitly state that they ignore RFC series - making it basically anti-social behaviour in the kernel community.