On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 09:45:38AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 9:25 AM Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > neither of which have had any response at all. It really seems like > > there is some room for improvement in your processes here, currently > > that's three drm trees all held out of -next with the same fairly simple > > build issue. Can I suggest at least check to see if the code you are > > trying to merge is in -next, the drm merge was done after amdgpu had > > been held out of -next for several days. > I sent the PR out on Thursday and you reported the issue on Friday, > then the weekend happened. It was investigated and fixed, however The actual merge still didn't happen until after I'd reported the issue, and then as ever things are now starting to propagate through the other drm trees. It seems fairly obvious that there is room for improvement here, for example people could check that the code they're merging has at least made it into -next. > Dave reported a different stack frame warning yesterday so we are > trying to make sure that is resolved as well. In addition we've been > trying to figure out why our clang builds did not catch it in the > first place. All the patches should be available momentarily. OK, that sounds more promising than what had been visible to me. It would be helpful if you could be more communicative regarding these issues, the drm trees and over the past couple of releases especially the amdgpu tree take substantially more of my time than the rest of -next. Between the frequency of the issues, the length of time they persist, the way your process will obviously trigger such issues and the near total lack of response to my reports it really never feels like that time is valued.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
