Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:23:25 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5 |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > i just successfully booted your config on 4 separate 64-bit > > > > test-systems with latest -tip. (two dual-core boxes, a quad and a > > > > 16way box) Latest -tip includes sched-next and x86-next as well. > > > > > > What's the point in testing a radically differenet kernel from the one > > > which is known to be crashing? > > > > well, you Cc:-ed me, so i wanted to exclude -tip's 750+ commits in this > > area (scheduling, 64-bit x86) in the first step. > > What's the relationship between -tip and linux-next?
most of the -tip topics (there are 75 of them currently) are present in linux-next - about ~70% of all -tip commits are in linux-next already. The stuff that is not in linux-next yet is either because it's: miscellany fixes (i.e. intentionally grabbed out-of-tree to make our tests work better), not cooked enough yet, or because we are still working it out - tip is less than a month old still.
in general the rule is that if there's anything we want to push upstream, it will show up in linux-next.
> The crash seems to be due to sched_domains startup ordering, at a guess. > > My third bisect iteration has hit this: > > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c: In function 'get_kmmio_probe': > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: implicit declaration of function 'list_for_each_entry_rcu' > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: 'list' undeclared (first use in this function)
hm, which commit is this exactly? I've never hit it myself in bisection (and there are days when i bisect -tip several times). We'll respin tip/tracing/mmiotrace if it's bisection-hostile. You can probably nudge it into building via "git-bisect next".
Ingo
| |