On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 06:43:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-08-12 00:28:13, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:29:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > compiles without any issues, right?
> >
> > It have some other issues instead. You didn't receive emails about
> > them because my system only complaint about "new" issues :-)
>
> OK
> >
> > In file included from /c/wfg/linux/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/misc.c:25:0:
> > /c/wfg/linux/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/m32r_sio.c:11:13: warning: conflicting types for built-in function 'putc' [enabled by default]
> > MODPOST 111 modules
> > ERROR: "memory_start" [fs/udf/udf.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "memory_end" [fs/udf/udf.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "memory_end" [drivers/scsi/sg.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "memory_start" [drivers/scsi/sg.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "memory_end" [drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "memory_start" [drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.ko] undefined!
> > GZIP arch/m32r/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin.gz
> > make[2]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** [modules] Error 2
> > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > LD arch/m32r/boot/compressed/piggy.o
> > /usr/local/gcc-4.6.3-nolibc/m32r-linux/bin/m32r-linux-ld: target elf32-m32r not found
>
> I assume those are present in the mmotm as well.
I think so, too.
> > > > Btw, is it meaningful for me to test the bisectability of all the
> > > > memcg branches? If not, you may give me a list or pattern for me to
> > > > take care.
> > >
> > > Well, I do not think that this kind of test makes sense for the tree
> > > because fixups are always done as a separate commits to prevent from
> > > rebasing. Andrew always folds the fixups into the final patch which is
> > > sent to Linus or who ever should push it further.
> >
> > Yeah the build script have taken care of these follow-up fixes:
> >
> > has_akpm_fix()
> > {
> > [[ $branch = 'next/akpm' || $branch =~ 'memcg/' ]] || return 1
> >
> > [[ $(git_commit_subject $commit) =~ (fix|build|error|warning) ]] && return 0
> > [[ $(git_commit_changelog $commit) =~ (build|compile|gcc|sparse|error|warning) ]] && return 0
> >
> > next_commit=$(echo "$*" | sed -ne "$((iterated_commits+2))p")
> > [[ $(git_commit_subject $next_commit) =~ (fix|build|error|warning) ]] && return 0
> > [[ $(git_commit_changelog $next_commit) =~ (build|compile|gcc|sparse|error|warning) ]] && return 0
> > return 1
> > }
>
> OK, but I still think that the tree is not constructed to be bisectable.
> It's main purpose is the provide a common code base for -mm tree which
> is easier to work with than linux-next. The compilation coverage is
> really great and thanks a lot for doing that but I think that
> bisectability testing is not needed.
Understand. I'll test the HEAD commits only for the memcg branches.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
