From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rui Sousa Subject: Re: linux-next: tip-core build failure Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:02:48 +0200 Message-ID: <200809151502.48849.rui.p.m.sousa@gmail.com> References: <20080913111423.981554c3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080915054508.1a7f4a24.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080915081129.GD29585@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:53354 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753270AbYIONC7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:02:59 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so780455ugf.37 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080915081129.GD29585@elte.hu> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Monday 15 September 2008 10:11, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Ingo, > > > > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:17:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:36:29 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > [ ... just used by 90%+ of our active testers/developers ;-) ... ] > > > > > > > > An irrelevant argument in this case. > > > > > > why is the actual usage distribution of Linux irrelevant? We make > > > > Notice the "in this case"? In this case the code being changed > > clearly could affect other architectures, so checking that x86 is OK > > is clearly not enough (and that does not mean building it for 20+ > > other architectures, just using grep to see the consequences of the > > change and maybe discussing it with the affected architecture > > maintainers or on linux-arch). > > again, the side effects were not realized. Pretty much _any_ patch that > is not strictly restricted to a single architecture 'could' affect other > architectures. Any change to a common .h or .c file could do that - and > 90% of Linux's source code is in common files. > > Hence your suggestion that we should have found this breakage makes no > sense in practice as it's not reliably testable. > > Yes, for things like sparseirq support we pretty much expected > cross-arch fallout so we checked a ton of architectures. For other > patches bugs can slip through, and that's OK as we really dont want to > dog down pretty much every patch with the requirement to cross-build. > > Ingo Hi, I have just subscribed to linux-arch and will work on a patch updating all archictures. Once I have it I will post it on the list for discussion/review. One thing that would be nice, but I don't see how it can be done in practice, is to have a public server, where people can submit their patches and at least make sure they compile on all archictetures. Thanks, Rui