[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PULL] x86 cpumask work

* Rusty Russell <> wrote:

> On Friday 13 March 2009 11:27:43 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Rusty Russell <> wrote:
> > > Missing a core patch (it even got a compile warning with that
> > > config).
> > So it's manual work and sometimes i notice them amongst a
> > boatload of other warnings, sometimes i dont.
> Me too :( I thought you were starting a de-warning tree? I'd
> be happy to send you patches (particularly, exporting
> deprecated symbols should not give a warning!).

Yeah - i have a de-warning tree, but it's not yet fully up and
running for -tip qa automation.

> > > But there's something else wrong. Firing up my 64-bit
> > > test box now.
> >
> > Great - so you can reproduce. Thanks,
> Yep, and I'm running some stress tests as well now.
> Perhaps throw away that tree, and I'll feed you a new one (the
> core patch needs to go at the front), but I can work either
> way.

Ok, i dropped it back to d95c357.

Suggestion for future workflow: we wouldnt have these somewhat
stressful (and stressful to you mostly!), large hickups and
history-less trees if you sent stuff more gradually and not so
close to the merge window. You exposed some of your changes to
linux-next but that's not nearly enough testing in practice for
x86-affecting patches.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-13 04:23    [W:0.030 / U:3.296 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site