Re: linux-next: boot test failure (net tree)

[Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com>]

Hi,

[Added linux-kbuild@ to the Cc: list.]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:41:29 +1000
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.a=
u> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:30:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.=
au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Here's what I am applying as a merge fixup to the net tree today so t=
hat
>>> > my ppc64_defconfig builds actually build more or less the same set of
>>> > drivers as before this rearrangement.
>>>
>>> And this today:
>>
>> And this:
>
> I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this whole situation, and I
> feel more and more that these new kconfig guards are not tenable.
>
> Changing defconfig files might fix the "automated test boot with
> defconfig" case but it won't fix the case of someone trying to
> automate a build and boot using a different, existing, config file.
> It ought to work too, and I do know people really do this.
>
> And just the fact that we would have to merge all of these defconfig chan=
ges
> through the networking tree is evidence of how it's really not reasonable
> to be doing things this way.
>
> Jeff, I think we need to revert the dependencies back to what they were
> before the drivers/net moves. =A0Could you prepare a patch which does tha=
t?
>
Are you implying we need some kind of way to migrate config ?

 - Arnaud