On 01/11/11 21:18, Len Brown wrote: >>> --- linux-next-20101213.orig/drivers/thermal/Kconfig >>> +++ linux-next-20101213/drivers/thermal/Kconfig >>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ >>> >>> menuconfig THERMAL >>> tristate "Generic Thermal sysfs driver" >>> + depends on NET > > I've added this line to the offending patch. Thank you. > While I agree that randconfig build testing > is theoretically useful, in recent memory > its results do not seem particularly relevant > to useful configs. Who defines useful? "what is good for the goose is not good for the gander" > Perhaps it would be a good idea to spend some time > making non-useful configs impossible, and thus focus > the testing where it will be of more benefit? We have a plethora of kernel configs, so yes, I'd be glad to see your efforts in that area. Here's my take on kernel builds: Ideally (randconfig) build testing wouldn't be needed and developers would: - know what kernel facilities their code uses and #include header files for all of them - know what kernel configs their code uses and make their code depend on or select the needed config symbols - actually read & review build output to look for errors and warnings in their code and not ignore them but actually fix them - use sparse to check for other warnings The current attitude of "if it builds, then it must be OK" is not good. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
