lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

* Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 10:21:10AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:12:02 -0800
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:02:39 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Andrew.
> > > > >
> > > > > > sparc64-use-unsigned-long-long-for-u64.patch
> > > > > > sparc64-fix-unsigned-long-long-warnings-in-drivers.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > Please drop these two.
> > > >
> > > > Might, if they break my build.
> > >
> > > They don't build, I tested them when I tried integrated Sam's patches.
> >
> > do they break due to some warnings caught by -Werror?
>
> Yup.

So your patches "dont build" because some Sparc configs produce new
(presumably harmless) warnings?

And the solution is to not do your patch and export other warnings to the
core kerne, which then get reported as bugs there and which result in
fugly fixes? (and which resulted in a crapload of ugly fixes in the past
10 years)

That is quite backwards, no matter how i look at it. Why doesnt Sparc do
the obvious and turn off -Werror until it has gotten around to fix those
few remaining warnings? It took me 30 minutes to fix up PowerPC defconfig
with a similar change, it cannot be that much harder on Sparc either
(powerpc arch code is a lot larger in fact). I'd be surprised if it took
more than 10 minutes of davem's time.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-05 11:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans