Re: 2.6.13-rc3 test: finding compile errors with make randconfig

[Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 7/24/05, Grant Coady <lkml@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:13:27 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> 
> With > 2k (raw) errors in 97.something builds of 2.6.12.3, why go
> looking for trouble in -mm?

Because -mm is the development tree. The things in -mm are what's
eventually going to end up in mainline, so that's what you want to be
testing and fixing, and it's also further ahead than 2.6.12.3 (which
is esentially a dead branch except for critical fixes) so stuff may
already have been fixed there that was broken in 2.6.12.3

> >
> >And doing the compilations is really the trivial part of the work, the
> Got to start somewhere :)
> 
Right you are, and I for one am glad you do it. I build randconfig
kernels myself to look for trouble spots, but I can't get anywhere
near building 200+ configs. On a good day I may build 5 or 6
randconfigs of the latest kernel inbetween doing other things, so
getting hold of the results of several hundred randconfig builds gives
me a lot of material to work on that I would never have the time to
gather myself. Thanks.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html