Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 04 May 2014 14:33:24 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3.14 000/158] 3.14.3-stable review |
| |
On 05/04/2014 01:27 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 10:19:25AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 05/04/2014 08:38 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.14.3 release. >>> There are 158 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>> let me know. >>> >>> Responses should be made by Tue May 6 15:38:47 UTC 2014. >>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>> >> >> Build results: >> total: 127 pass: 121 skipped: 4 fail: 2 >> >> Qemu tests all passed. >> >> Additional failure is from new build target unicore32:defconfig, which fails >> in all releases. The second failure is powerpc:allmodconfig which, together >> with powerpc:allyesconfig, fails to build in 3.14 and later kernels. >> Results are therefore as expected. >> >> Details are available at http://server.roeck-us.net:8010/builders. >> > > If unicore32 doesn't build on any kernel version, should we just drop > the whole arch? >
Idea was to put the maintainer on notice. If nothing changes, that may be a good idea.
> I'd suggest the same for powerpc, but odds are, there are still users :) > Yes, the company paying my salary, for example :-). But then if failure to build allmodconfig/allyesconfig is a criteria, arm would be a prime target as well ...
Might be a discussion point for the kernel summit, though: What are criteria for an architecture to be accepted, and for it to remain in the kernel ? Availability of a pre-built tool set (score drops out)? defconfig build failure (unicore32 be gone) ? Something else ?
Guenter
| |