Hi James, On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:56:13 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 18:02 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > * successfully unit tested, and > > The rest are fine, but this one isn't feasible for a driver tree ... I > don't have all the hardware, and people will insist on fixing > theoretical bugs in drivers we can't test on. > > A lot of time, bugs turn up in this code only after it has been on > release for several months and the small pool of HW owners actually gets > around to testing it. > > Additionally, I have to carry patches on trust for HW I'm never likely > to see outside someones multi-million dollar lab. OK, in the context of linux-next, "successfully unit tested" to me means that it doesn't break on "reasonable" builds (i.e. x86(_64) allmodconfig or something similar) and probably won't break if someone tries to use it. Clearly, you are correct, you can't test everything. I guess I just want to be able to be justifiably annoyed if my builds break for something obvious (which does happen from time to time :-(). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpfCtcDA8gBn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
