From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755478Ab0BXHZw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:25:52 -0500 Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:58554 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755422Ab0BXHZv (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:25:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:25:40 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Ingo Molnar Cc: 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: <20100224182540.918b48b0.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20100223084552.GB17617@elte.hu> References: <20100211195614.886724710@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <20100222090710.GA31357@elte.hu> <20100222203319.8bd497a2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100222102745.GJ20844@elte.hu> <20100222224752.0cbd5807.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100223084552.GB17617@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.0 (GTK+ 2.18.7; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__24_Feb_2010_18_25_40_+1100_gl3s4g2eJ6gHaGNY" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Wed__24_Feb_2010_18_25_40_+1100_gl3s4g2eJ6gHaGNY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [I have removed linux-tip-commits from the cc list] Hi Ingo, On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:45:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Developers simply cannot be expected to build for 22 architectures, and t= hey=20 > shouldnt be. I have agreed with this point of yours several times. Why do you keep stating it? > The thing is, last i checked you didnt even _test_ x86 as the first step = in=20 > your linux-next build tests. Most of your generic build bug reports are=20 > against PowerPC. They create the appearance that x86 is a second class ci= tizen=20 > in linux-next. Lets see. Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors. Of these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other archs. Of the ppc reports, 10 would not affect x86 builds (due to being ppc specific problems or dependencies on implicit includes that do happen on x86). None of the reports against other arches would affect x86 builds. I also reported 31 warnings. 15 against x86, 15 against ppc and 1 against both. Of those only reported against ppc, 13 did not affect x86. So of my "generic" reports, 4 errors and 2 warnings were reported against ppc, 16 errors and 15 warnings again x86. Also, I am not sure how reports of 37 build errors and 32 warnings over 60 days can tax the resources of our developer base. Most of these are fairly trivial to fix (as is shown by how quick they are fixed. Usually the developer has just forgotten to test the !CONFIG_SOMETHING case or used some function without explicitly including the file that declares it. As to my perceived pro-PowerPC and anti-x86 bias, you are the only one who has even mentioned it to me. Anyway, I sick of these discussions. If people see the way I do linux-next as a problem, then they can find someone else. That is not the impression I gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these occasional "discussions") I am quite happy to continue. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Wed__24_Feb_2010_18_25_40_+1100_gl3s4g2eJ6gHaGNY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuE1HQACgkQjjKRsyhoI8x1pACglYmuV96kubBTzaIHKfOOQH3p UzYAnjUPiYowTnV5nLWGKVQsY7WTAFc/ =3vJQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__24_Feb_2010_18_25_40_+1100_gl3s4g2eJ6gHaGNY--