Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: linux-next requirements | Date | Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:31:06 +0100 |
| |
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 20:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > On Saturday 27 February 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >> > >> > > > Lets see. Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors. Of > >> > > > these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other > >> > > > archs. > >> > > > >> > > So only 43% of them were even relevant on the platform that 95+% of the > >> > > Linux testers use? Seems to support the points i made. > >> > > >> > Well, I hope you don't mean that because the majority of bug reporters (vs > >> > testers, the number of whom is unknown to me at least) use x86, we are free > >> > to break the other architectures. ;-) > >> > >> It means exactly that: just like we 'can' break compilation with gcc296, > >> ancient versions of binutils, odd bootloaders, can break the boot via odd > >> hardware, etc. When someone uses that architectures then the 'easy' bugfixes > >> will actually flow in very quickly and without much fuss > > > > Then I don't understand what the problem with getting them in at the linux-next > > stage is. They are necessary anyway, so we'll need to add them sooner or > > later and IMO the sooner the better. > > > > Apart from this, that cross-build issues aren't always "easy" and sometimes > > they take quite some time and engineering effort to resolve. IMO that's better > > done at the linux-next stage than during a merge window. > > > >> - and without burdening developers to consider cases they have no good ways > >> to test. Why should rare architectures be more important than those other > >> rare forms of Linux usage? > > > > Because the Linus' tree is supposed to build on those architectures. As long > > as that's the case, linux-next should build on them too. > > > >> In fact those rare ways of building and booting the kernel i mentioned are > >> probably used _more_ than half of the architectures that linux-next > >> build-tests ... > > > > I don't know and you don't know either. That's just pure speculation and > > therefore meaningless. > > If only the CE Linux Forum member companies would publish figures about the > number of Linux devices they push onto the world population... > > Yes I know, this still excludes `obsolete' architectures like parisc > and alpha, but it would > change the balance towards x86 (and powerpc?) drastically.
You apparently forgot about ARM.
Rafael
| |