lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next requirements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)
On 02/22/2010 03:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> So this kind of linux-next requirement causes the over-testing of code that
>> doesnt get all that much active usage, plus it increases build testing
>> overhead 10-fold. That, by definition, causes the under-testing of code that
>> _does_ matter a whole lot more to active testers of the Linux kernel.
>
> Which is why linux-next does *not* require that. (Did you read the part
> of my email that you removed?) I do point out when build failures occur
> (that is part of the point of linux-next after all) but they only upset
> me when it is clear that the code that has been changed was not built at
> all (which doesn't happen too often).
>
>> Which is a problem, obviously.
>
> It certainly would be.
>
> Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Sounds like a big source of confusion to me.

Either which way, Roland has a mitigation patch -- which basically
disables the broken bits of PARISC until the PARISC maintainers fix it.
What is the best way to handle that kind of stuff?

-hpa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-23 00:01    [W:1.605 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site