From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lacombar@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com (mail-pz0-f46.google.com
	[209.85.210.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9241FB6F91
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:50:05 +1000 (EST)
Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so11352807pzk.33
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110822.191348.2099822249437201579.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20110822113032.15087c2e190e2b0c3ee7dfb8@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20110823114011.a059aea0138b75bfa7eed1ce@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20110823114129.ceb18da164bf7df3c145941b@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20110822.191348.2099822249437201579.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:50:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CACqU3MW4BnucRt3gxPrKPDvWEjaVuxRF1VOPWk5hTRfneyANkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: boot test failure (net tree)
From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, mikey@neuling.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	paulus@samba.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi,

[Added linux-kbuild@ to the Cc: list.]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> 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.a=
u> 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 t=
hat
>>> > 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 chan=
ges
> 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. =A0Could you prepare a patch which does tha=
t?
>
Are you implying we need some kind of way to migrate config ?

 - Arnaud