Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:31:42 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error |
| |
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:29:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ok, that's good enough - that's why i excluded it from the > > > > > > auto-qa test-space as well. Adrian, could you please remove > > > > > > it from your config testset as well? If a user enables that > > > > > > config option it wont boot anyway so it's not a problem in > > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > Who said that Voyager won't boot? > > > > > > > > Adrian, you build Voyager kernels so just try to boot it once on > > > > your PC and watch the show ... > > > > > > Ingo, an ia64 kernel also won't boot on my computer, and I'll > > > still compile test my patches for ia64 ... > > > > dont be silly... the ia64 kernel is not under arch/x86, it's not > > even the same instruction format. Voyager runs on x86 CPUs and is > > part of the x86 architecture tree. > > Your point is?
my point is what i said and which you apparently did not understand:
| Adrian, could you please remove it from your config testset as well? | If a user enables that config option it wont boot anyway so it's not a | problem in practice.
> I'm compile testing 22 architectures (especially when sending my own > patches), and whether a kernel would boot on my computer doesn't make > any difference.
a user wont 'accidentally' install a crosscompiler toolchain to create an unbootable kernel...
Ingo
| |