lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next requiements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:07:10 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > I'll keep them in tip:master to get them tested, but note that i cannot
> > push any of these patches into linux-next until this is fixed, as
> > linux-next requires all architectures to build, with no regard to which
> > architectures are tested by kernel testers in practice.
>
> I merely expect people not to push known broken code into linux-next.

FYI, this 'mere' kind of indiscriminate definition of 'breakage' is what i am
talking about.

The occasional driver build breakage can be tested relatively easily: one
allyesconfig build and it's done. Build testing 22 architectures is
exponentially harder: it requires the setup (and constant maintenance) of
zillions of tool-chains, plus the build time is significant as well.

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 a problem, obviously.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-22 11:31    [W:0.091 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site