On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:34 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [off-list ref] wrote:

...which I just put down to random breakage, turned off the umh and
continued on my way (ignoring the failed test). Until you wrote this I
did not suspect this would be something I needed to pay attention to.
Now that you did mention it, I'll obviously go investigate some more, my
point is just that in this instance it's not accurate to assume I just
didn't run the tests... :)

Ignoring failures is the same as not running them.
I expect all developers to confirm that they see "0 FAILED" before
sending any patches.

quoted

I think I will just start marking patches as changes-requested when I see that
they break tests without replying and without reviewing.
Please respect reviewer's time.

That is completely fine if the tests are working in the first place. And
even when they're not (like in this case), pointing it out is fine, and
I'll obviously go investigate. But please at least reply to the email,
not all of us watch patchwork regularly.

Please see Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst.
patchwork status is the way we communicate the intent.
If the patch is not in the queue it won't be acted upon.