On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 at 15:40, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2025-11-25 at 15:36 +0800, David Gow wrote: > > > > > > Or it's not that urgent because all this came up in -next now? I didn't > > > really see (or fully understand) all the build bug reports. > > > > > > > I'm happy for this to go in via any tree. (Worst-case, we could > > possibly take it via KUnit, though I'd rather not, as it's not really > > KUnit-related at all.) > > > > The issue has actually been around since probably 6.16 (c284d3e42338 > > ("rust: drm: gem: Add GEM object abstraction")), but since it only > > applies to people building Rust graphics drivers against UML, which is > > not super common, it seems like it's only come up in randconfig builds > > so far. > > Oh, interesting, OK. I guess then given that it's not super important > and how late we're in the game, I'll just throw it into the (relatively > small) pile we have for UML for -next. Given that we removed the pcap > driver in 6.11 (12b8e7e69aa7a) I guess we could even ask stable to take > it, but it's not even that important until someone wants to test the > rust DRM stuff in kunit or something :) >
Sounds good to me. Throwing the Fixes: tag in wouldn't hurt at least (and I do think some of the Rust DRM stuff is growing some KUnit tests, so it'll be nice to have going forward, even if they can be tested under other architectures). Cheers, -- David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
