Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> I'm not claiming it was the end of the world if someone accidentally 
> breaks Voyager.
> 
> But Ingo wanted me to stop to sometimes compile test Voyager.
> 

It would be good if "make randconfig" didn't go down this or other 
"secondary" paths.

>> James has offered to fix up Voyager breakage a posteori, and that is the  
>> appropriate action for a niche architecture like this.
> 
> I'm still not getting the point why we should ever wait for James for 
> doing things like
> -       select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB
> +       select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB if !X86_VOYAGER
> 
> And the other compile breakages we had recently weren't much worse.
> 
> I fully agree that it makes sense that Voyager problems should not be 
> showstoppers and that James is the one capable and responsible of fixing 
> non-trivial issues.

That's fine, IMHO, just don't require *other* people to worry about it.

	-hpa