[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:0.184 / U:0.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site