From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: afleming@gmail.com, afleming@freescale.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change S390 anti-dependency to CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS dependency
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:48:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F61EF8.20202@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081014.221647.184282035.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:07:55 -0400
>
>> But then it will be much more of a pain to exclude the vast swath of
>> irrelevant code in the kernel tree from your builds on these exotic
>> architectures. Have you ever built a kernel on s390?
>
> That's totally irrelevant.
>
> Does S390 have ethernet or ethernet-like devices? If so, the someday
> it might in fact might want to use something like phylib instead of
> adding yet another implementation of programming a particular PHY
> chip.
Last I checked, s390 doesn't have any hardware that can't be shared
between at least 64 guests. The most Linux will ever control on that
hardware is a software channel, be it a channel to a disk controller,
network controller, or application-specific offload engine. They don't
really have NICs, more like a built-in router which can optionally fake
layer 2 for the benefit of guests.
> So in fact, something like phylib should be possible to enable even on
> s390.
>
> And this current situation means s390 builds get less coverage, making
> allmodconfig test builds (which the s390 folks are obviously doing
> since they hit this originally reported build failure) less
> useful than they could be.
Currently, allmodconfig on s390 is cheap, because there's a miniscule
amount of device driver code that can be enabled in Kconfig. If you
enabled all those other drivers to build on s390, it would take *days*
to complete an allmodconfig build natively or in an emulator. Forcing
people to use cross-compilers to get things done at a reasonable pace
would mean treating s390 differently from other architectures in
multi-platform build systems, and would probably have the effect that
nobody outside of IBM would do any significant build testing on that
architecture.
> I would even be happy to make it such that SBUS drivers can be
> enabled for test building on x86, and in fact right now in
> Linus's tree that's very close to doable.
I have no objection to that. I have MIPS to burn on my x86 boxes. s390
MIPS cost a few orders of magnitude more.
-- Chris
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-15 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-14 22:28 [PATCH] Change S390 anti-dependency to CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS dependency Andy Fleming
2008-10-14 22:44 ` David Miller
2008-10-14 23:21 ` Andy Fleming
2008-10-14 23:33 ` David Miller
2008-10-14 23:43 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-14 23:52 ` David Miller
2008-10-15 0:07 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-15 5:16 ` David Miller
2008-10-15 16:48 ` Chris Snook [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48F61EF8.20202@redhat.com \
--to=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=afleming@freescale.com \
--cc=afleming@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).