On 02/22/2010 03:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> 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 why linux-next does *not* require that. (Did you read the part > of my email that you removed?) I do point out when build failures occur > (that is part of the point of linux-next after all) but they only upset > me when it is clear that the code that has been changed was not built at > all (which doesn't happen too often). > >> Which is a problem, obviously. > > It certainly would be. > > Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sounds like a big source of confusion to me. Either which way, Roland has a mitigation patch -- which basically disables the broken bits of PARISC until the PARISC maintainers fix it. What is the best way to handle that kind of stuff? -hpa -- 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
|