On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:27 AM Miguel Ojeda miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise it needs to be dropped/reverted.
Nobody has argued that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: "So I think we can fix them as they come.".
I am expecting Masahiro to follow up. It has been less than 24 hours since the report, on a weekend.
Cheers, Miguel
Sorry for the delay.
Now I sent out the fix for lantiq_etop.c
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1355595/
The reason of the complication was I was trying to merge the following patch in the same development cycle: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/20201117104736.24997...
-Werror=return-type gives a bigger impact because any instance of __must_check violation results in build breakage. So, I just dropped it from my tree (and, I will aim for 5.12).
The removal of CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK is less impactive, because we are still able to build with some warnings.
Tomorrow's linux-next should be OK and, you can send my patch in this merge window.