From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761002AbYD3Pf2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:35:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752293AbYD3PfU (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:35:20 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]:60791 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751493AbYD3PfS (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:35:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=k2/n8+CPwcGdaElutkYOeJBrk26SB+Trdn/yfOQ+IL/CTZN0or02zMtJSuUa+zeyC3P2Ajzh8iCL+D7zXNPffaEiBL3iB/OADKLse5oNbSD2pZysdpTBxAHWrWPUooarBrtDC3VxzYaxJ1Qm0CpHUmpZ1c/IZ4ggOCd7WXNcK7A= Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: !x & y typo in mtrr code From: Harvey Harrison To: Ingo Molnar Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink , Al Viro , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" In-Reply-To: <20080430123536.GD30735@elte.hu> References: <1209268817.14173.43.camel@brick> <20080427042051.GL5882@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080429210435.GA23008@elte.hu> <20080430064603.GA3602@atjola.homenet> <20080430093233.GD23528@elte.hu> <20080430121738.GA4559@atjola.homenet> <20080430123536.GD30735@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:35:34 -0700 Message-Id: <1209569734.24729.65.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 14:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > We for one simply concentrate on the the things that we think makes it > more likely to find bugs. For example we build and boot x86.git with > many different configs before every pull request. In practice that > catches far more tester-critical bugs than Sparse - and we know that > simply from the fact because we use both methods and have a good > comparison of the results. We also work on automating Sparse checks in > the future but as i said it, it's not easy. > That's precisely why I've been sending all of the sparse cleanup patches lately, to try and get the output down to something more managable. You may want to upgrade your sparse to one that understands __cold though. Harvey