lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 (http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/) to build a
selection of configs and architectures automatically.

Paul.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-25 11:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans