Re: linux-next: boot test failure (net tree)

[Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 19:13 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:41:29 +1000
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:30:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Here's what I am applying as a merge fixup to the net tree today so that
> >> > my ppc64_defconfig builds actually build more or less the same set of
> >> > drivers as before this rearrangement.
> >> 
> >> And this today:
> > 
> > And this:
> 
> I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this whole situation, and I
> feel more and more that these new kconfig guards are not tenable.
> 
> Changing defconfig files might fix the "automated test boot with
> defconfig" case but it won't fix the case of someone trying to
> automate a build and boot using a different, existing, config file.
> It ought to work too, and I do know people really do this.
> 
> And just the fact that we would have to merge all of these defconfig changes
> through the networking tree is evidence of how it's really not reasonable
> to be doing things this way.
> 
> Jeff, I think we need to revert the dependencies back to what they were
> before the drivers/net moves.  Could you prepare a patch which does that?
> 

I was just finishing up those patches (not including any defconfig
changes) and started looking at a patch to fix/resolve the issues that
Stephen is seeing.

Let me see what I can come up with tonight to resolve this.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]