lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-28 08:55    [W:0.055 / U:3.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site