From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755072Ab0BVW6I (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:58:08 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:56946 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754950Ab0BVW6F (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:58:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4B830BD8.3090600@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Ingo Molnar , 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) 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> In-Reply-To: <20100222224752.0cbd5807.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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