From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031558Ab0B1IUJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:20:09 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51373 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031496Ab0B1IUI (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:20:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:19:22 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, roland@redhat.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hjl.tools@gmail.com, Andrew Morton , Linus Subject: Re: linux-next requirements Message-ID: <20100228081922.GO30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20100211195614.886724710@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <201002271323.14402.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100227124710.GA21164@elte.hu> <201002272007.43042.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100228071405.GA14205@elte.hu> <20100228183725.80915681.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100228075105.GC14205@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100228075105.GC14205@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 08:51:05AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ( Alas, ARM doesnt tend to be a big problem, at least as far as the facilities > i'm concerned about go: it has implemented most of the core kernel > infrastructures so there's few if any 'self inflicted' breakages that i can > remember. ) FWIW, it might make sense to run cross-builds for many targets and post the things that crop up + analysis to linux-arch... Any takers? I haven't run a lot of cross-builds lately, but IME most of the breakage tends to be less dramatic - somebody relying on indirect includes in driver *or* forgetting to add "depends on" to Kconfig used to be the most frequent case. "let other targets rot" attitude has a very nasty effect - it snowballs. At some point people *can't* check that their patches don't break things, even if they want to. And that, IMO, sucks. At that point architecture needs to be either removed or brought to the state when it builds in mainline. Note that we have filesystems that are built only on some architectures. I don't know about you, but I *do* care about not leaving half-converted interfaces in that area. For entirely rational reasons - people tend to copy b0rken code from random places in the tree. Playing whack-a-mole gets old pretty soon.