On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 01:16 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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 :-(). OK, so I can do compile tested for almost everything except s390 drivers ... James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
