From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757570AbZCMDUn (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:20:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752805AbZCMDUf (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:20:35 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:33227 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752384AbZCMDUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:20:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:20:15 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Mike Travis Subject: Re: [PULL] x86 cpumask work Message-ID: <20090313032015.GD18760@elte.hu> References: <200903121453.45163.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <200903130924.48885.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090313005743.GE19544@elte.hu> <200903131316.26455.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903131316.26455.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rusty Russell wrote: > On Friday 13 March 2009 11:27:43 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rusty Russell wrote: > > > Missing a core patch (it even got a compile warning with that > > > config). > > So it's manual work and sometimes i notice them amongst a > > boatload of other warnings, sometimes i dont. > > Me too :( I thought you were starting a de-warning tree? I'd > be happy to send you patches (particularly, exporting > deprecated symbols should not give a warning!). Yeah - i have a de-warning tree, but it's not yet fully up and running for -tip qa automation. > > > But there's something else wrong. Firing up my 64-bit > > > test box now. > > > > Great - so you can reproduce. Thanks, > > Yep, and I'm running some stress tests as well now. > > Perhaps throw away that tree, and I'll feed you a new one (the > core patch needs to go at the front), but I can work either > way. Ok, i dropped it back to d95c357. Suggestion for future workflow: we wouldnt have these somewhat stressful (and stressful to you mostly!), large hickups and history-less trees if you sent stuff more gradually and not so close to the merge window. You exposed some of your changes to linux-next but that's not nearly enough testing in practice for x86-affecting patches. Ingo