Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:51:05 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next requirements |
| |
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:14:05 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > [...] As long as that's the case, linux-next should build on them too. > > > > No, and IMO linux-next is clearly over-interpreting this bit. Linux is not > > supposed to build on all architectures. Maybe that's a core bit of a > > misunderstanding (on either my or on sfr's side) and it should be clarified > > ... > > Well, we have no real problem then. The only architectures for which a > failure will stop new stuff getting into linux-next are the ones I > personally build while constructing the tree (x86, ppc and sparc). Once > something is in linux-next, even if it causes a build failure overnight, I > am loath to remove it again as it can cause pain for Andrew (who bases -mm > on linux-next).
Ok - very good. This has apparently been relaxed some time ago, i know linux-next used to be more stringent.
> I will still report such failures (if I have time to notice them - I mostly > hope that architecture maintainers will have a glance over the build results > themselves) and others do as well but such failures do not generally cause > any actions on my part (except in rare cases I may actually fix the problem > or put a provided fix patch in linux-next).
Yeah. Plus it's never black and white - sometimes a rare arch will show some real crappiness in a commit. So we want to know all bugs.
> I would like to add arm to the mix of the architectures I build during > construction, but there is no wide ranging config that builds for arm and > building a few of the configs would just end up taking too much time.
Yeah, ARM is clearly important from a usage share POV IMHO, and it's also actively driving many areas of interest.
It's also a bit difficult to keep ARM going because there's so many non-standardized hw variants of ARM, so i'm sure the ARM folks will appreciate us not breaking them ...
( Alas, ARM doesnt tend to be a big problem, at least as far as the facilities i'm concerned about go: it has implemented most of the core kernel infrastructures so there's few if any 'self inflicted' breakages that i can remember. )
> Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |