Re: linux-next requirements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	roland@redhat.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	hjl.tools@gmail.com, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next requirements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B830BD8.3090600@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100222224752.0cbd5807.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>

On 02/22/2010 03:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> So this kind of linux-next requirement causes the over-testing of code that 
>> doesnt get all that much active usage, plus it increases build testing 
>> overhead 10-fold. That, by definition, causes the under-testing of code that 
>> _does_ matter a whole lot more to active testers of the Linux kernel.
> 
> Which is why linux-next does *not* require that. (Did you read the part
> of my email that you removed?)  I do point out when build failures occur
> (that is part of the point of linux-next after all) but they only upset
> me when it is clear that the code that has been changed was not built at
> all (which doesn't happen too often).
>  
>> Which is a problem, obviously.
> 
> It certainly would be.
> 
> Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Sounds like a big source of confusion to me.

Either which way, Roland has a mitigation patch -- which basically
disables the broken bits of PARISC until the PARISC maintainers fix it.
 What is the best way to handle that kind of stuff?

	-hpa