Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:07:15 -0700 | From | Nish Aravamudan <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.13-mm3 |
| |
On 9/12/05, Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/12/05, Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/12/05, Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9/12/05, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > [...] > > > > > > > > - There are several performance tuning patches here which need careful > > > > attention and testing. (Does anyone do performance testing any more?) > > > > > > How about the tool announced months ago by Martin J. Bligh ? > > > > > > http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mbligh/abat/regression_matrix.html > > > > Preferred location is: test.kernel.org (much shorter too!) > > I wasn't aware of that, thank you! Now I won't forget anymore that URL ;-)
That was the idea, I think :)
> > Also, the problem for -mm3 is that -mm2 did not build on most > > machines. -mm1 did on 4/6. Probably some determination could be made > > from those. > > I see. But I still think that automated testing is a great opportunity > for the community to pinpoint problems.
Wasn't arguing that point by any means.
> Is there anything we can do to make thinks work better ?
See why the builds failed (the logs should say), e.g. for elm3b6, the x86-64 box:
arch/x86_64/pci/built-in.o(.init.text+0xa88): In function `pci_acpi_scan_root': : undefined reference to `pxm_to_node'
and try to fix 'em. Buildable kernels (which has been a problem for -mm lately, I guess, with certain .configs at least) mean testable kernels.
Might be fixed in -mm3, I dunno (those jobs haven't been spawned yet, it would seem).
Thanks, Nish - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |