Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:39:48 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next requirements |
| |
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> [I have removed linux-tip-commits from the cc list] > > Hi Ingo, > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:45:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > Developers simply cannot be expected to build for 22 architectures, and > > they shouldnt be. > > I have agreed with this point of yours several times. Why do you keep > stating it?
If you agree with me then why do you put so much focus on cross-arch build failures, versus other, more relevant forms of testing?
> > The thing is, last i checked you didnt even _test_ x86 as the first step > > in your linux-next build tests. Most of your generic build bug reports are > > against PowerPC. They create the appearance that x86 is a second class > > citizen in linux-next. > > 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.
> Of the ppc reports, 10 would not affect x86 builds (due to being ppc > specific problems or dependencies on implicit includes that do happen on > x86). None of the reports against other arches would affect x86 builds. > > I also reported 31 warnings. 15 against x86, 15 against ppc and 1 against > both. Of those only reported against ppc, 13 did not affect x86. > > So of my "generic" reports, 4 errors and 2 warnings were reported against > ppc, 16 errors and 15 warnings again x86. > > Also, I am not sure how reports of 37 build errors and 32 warnings over 60 > days can tax the resources of our developer base. [...]
Note that out of those 37 build errors only a small minority were caused by any tree i co-maintain. (i dont have the precise numbers but it's below 5)
Why? Because i cross-build before pushing to linux-next. I bug people about cross-arch build failures, and about the patch flow delays and hickups this causes. Without that you'd see twice that many cross-build failures.
Which in itself is not bad of course (any fix is a good fix) - except the forced prioritization and its place in the workflow: it sends the wrong testing message.
It sends the message that building on N architectures is more important than for the code to work for real people. I've had good developers waste their time trying to set up cross-build testing environments and complain to me how this complicates their testing.
> [...] Most of these are fairly trivial to fix (as is shown by how quick > they are fixed. Usually the developer has just forgotten to test the > !CONFIG_SOMETHING case or used some function without explicitly including > the file that declares it. > > As to my perceived pro-PowerPC and anti-x86 bias, you are the only one who > has even mentioned it to me.
Have you asked me recently for example?
> Anyway, I sick of these discussions. If people see the way I do linux-next > as a problem, then they can find someone else. That is not the impression I > gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these occasional "discussions") > I am quite happy to continue.
Not sure how you jump from my observations to "I will quit if you do this". I am simply pointing out problems as i see them - as i do that with every piece of the workflow we use. I have expressed my views numerous times about where i find linux-next useful and positive - and it's sure a net positive.
Ingo
| |