[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent_clock()
    Ingo Molnar writes:

    > If you suggest that each and every subsystem maintainer who touches
    > code that can be built on non-x86 architectures has to cross-build
    > to 20+ architectures to be able to push out a tree, all the time,
    > and has to rebase if this ever gets omitted, you are really defying
    > reality and are hurting Linux.

    Nice straw man, but I never said or even suggested anything like
    that. :)

    I do think that it's reasonable to expect that a patch which touches
    the architecture-specific code for some architecture gets compiled
    for that architecture at least once before it gets set in stone. As
    far as I can tell, this didn't happen in the case of Martin's patch
    that triggered this debate.

    Patches which touch multiple architecture's arch-specific code should
    also get sent to the maintainers of the affected architectures and the
    linux-arch mailing list. I don't recall seeing this patch on
    linux-arch, though I may have missed it (and anyway that would be
    Martin's responsibility not yours, but it does contribute to the sense
    of being blindsided).

    More generally - if you don't have the resources to do regular build
    testing for powerpc or other architectures, then publish a testing
    branch and we'll get kisskb ( to build a
    selection of configs and architectures automatically.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-25 11:59    [W:0.024 / U:2.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site