Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/80] 4.19.272-rc1 review

[Guenter Roeck]

On 2/3/23 04:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/02/2023 12:04, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.272 release.
> > > There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > >          https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.272-rc1.gz
> > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > >          git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > Following patch caused build error on arm,
> >
> > > Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >      memory: mvebu-devbus: Fix missing clk_disable_unprepare in mvebu_devbus_probe()
> >
> > drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c: In function 'mvebu_devbus_probe':
> > drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c:297:8: error: implicit declaration of
> > function 'devm_clk_get_enabled'
> > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >    297 |  clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> >        |        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Already reported:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/

I don't usually check if release candidate reports have been reported already.
If I know about it, I may add a reference to the report, but typically I still
report it.

Personally I find it discouraging to get those "already reported" e-mails.
To me it sounds like "hey, you didn't do your job properly". It should not matter
if a problem was already reported or not, and I find it valuable if it is
reported multiple times because it gives an indication of the level of test
coverage. I would find it better if people would use something like "Also
reported:" instead. But then maybe I am just oversensitive, who knows.

Anyway, yes, I noticed this problem as well (and probably overlooked it
in my previous report to Greg - sorry for that).

Thanks,
Guenter