* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:07:10 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'll keep them in tip:master to get them tested, but note that i cannot > > push any of these patches into linux-next until this is fixed, as > > linux-next requires all architectures to build, with no regard to which > > architectures are tested by kernel testers in practice. > > I merely expect people not to push known broken code into linux-next. FYI, this 'mere' kind of indiscriminate definition of 'breakage' is what i am talking about. The occasional driver build breakage can be tested relatively easily: one allyesconfig build and it's done. Build testing 22 architectures is exponentially harder: it requires the setup (and constant maintenance) of zillions of tool-chains, plus the build time is significant as well. So this kind of linux-next requirement causes the over-testing of code that doesnt get all that much active usage, plus it increases build testing overhead 10-fold. That, by definition, causes the under-testing of code that _does_ matter a whole lot more to active testers of the Linux kernel. Which is a problem, obviously. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|