From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:54 +0200 Message-ID: <200906231555.54887.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200906231143.22985.arnd@arndb.de> <87zlbz17fb.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:57219 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753975AbZFWN4a (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:56:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zlbz17fb.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: liqin.chen@sunplusct.com, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Andi Kleen wrote: > IMHO a full successfull LTP run should be minimal criterium for > merging an architecture. That should catch most of the possible > "simple" mistakes in the syscall ABI. I would suggest to wait to after > this has been done. I agree in general, but in this case the ABI is essentially defined through the asm-generic headers, with the exception of the functions that actually were tested before the change (sys_clone, sys_execve, sys_rt_sigreturn and sys_sig). We should certainly fix the asm-generic versions if there are some unexpected problems found by LTP, but delaying the score merge won't help that, because the interesting code is already there. While I understand the argument against merging untested code (that's why I mentioned it in the first place), I think in this case it's not about the ABI and the code is obviously self-contained enough to cause no harm to others. Arnd <><