linux-next requirements
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [PATCH] tracing: Remove CONFIG_TRACE_POWER from kernel config
Next: [PATCH -tip 2/5] tracing: fix typo of info text in trace_kprobe.c
From: Stephen Rothwell on 24 Feb 2010 02:30 [I have removed linux-tip-commits from the cc list] Hi Ingo, On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:45:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)elte.hu> wrote: > > Developers simply cannot be expected to build for 22 architectures, and they > shouldnt be. I have agreed with this point of yours several times. Why do you keep stating it? > The thing is, last i checked you didnt even _test_ x86 as the first step in > your linux-next build tests. Most of your generic build bug reports are > against PowerPC. They create the appearance that x86 is a second class citizen > in linux-next. Lets see. Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors. Of these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other archs. Of the ppc reports, 10 would not affect x86 builds (due to being ppc specific problems or dependencies on implicit includes that do happen on x86). None of the reports against other arches would affect x86 builds. I also reported 31 warnings. 15 against x86, 15 against ppc and 1 against both. Of those only reported against ppc, 13 did not affect x86. So of my "generic" reports, 4 errors and 2 warnings were reported against ppc, 16 errors and 15 warnings again x86. Also, I am not sure how reports of 37 build errors and 32 warnings over 60 days can tax the resources of our developer base. Most of these are fairly trivial to fix (as is shown by how quick they are fixed. Usually the developer has just forgotten to test the !CONFIG_SOMETHING case or used some function without explicitly including the file that declares it. As to my perceived pro-PowerPC and anti-x86 bias, you are the only one who has even mentioned it to me. Anyway, I sick of these discussions. If people see the way I do linux-next as a problem, then they can find someone else. That is not the impression I gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these occasional "discussions") I am quite happy to continue. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
From: Grant Likely on 26 Feb 2010 21:00 On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > Anyway, I sick of these discussions. �If people see the way I do > linux-next as a problem, then they can find someone else. �That is not > the impression I gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these > occasional "discussions") I am quite happy to continue. Please don't stop. I'd be screwed. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Geert Uytterhoeven on 27 Feb 2010 04:00 On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 02:53, Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >> Anyway, I sick of these discussions. If people see the way I do >> linux-next as a problem, then they can find someone else. That is not >> the impression I gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these >> occasional "discussions") I am quite happy to continue. > > Please don't stop. I'd be screwed. Yes, I like linux-next, so Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert(a)linux-m68k.org> (This ack doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the discussion that happened on linux-tip-commits before. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it ;-). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert(a)linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput on 27 Feb 2010 04:10 Hello Stephen, On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Anyway, I sick of these discussions. �If people see the way I do > linux-next as a problem, then they can find someone else. �That is not > the impression I gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these > occasional "discussions") I am quite happy to continue. You are doing great job. linux-next is also very useful before submitting the patch as we can see all the changes under one roof. Please do not get upset with useless discussions and continue with your great work. Thanks and big Cheers :-) -- Jaswinder. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Ingo Molnar on 27 Feb 2010 04:50
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > [I have removed linux-tip-commits from the cc list] > > Hi Ingo, > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:45:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)elte.hu> wrote: > > > > Developers simply cannot be expected to build for 22 architectures, and > > they shouldnt be. > > I have agreed with this point of yours several times. Why do you keep > stating it? If you agree with me then why do you put so much focus on cross-arch build failures, versus other, more relevant forms of testing? > > The thing is, last i checked you didnt even _test_ x86 as the first step > > in your linux-next build tests. Most of your generic build bug reports are > > against PowerPC. They create the appearance that x86 is a second class > > citizen in linux-next. > > Lets see. Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors. Of > these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other archs. So only 43% of them were even relevant on the platform that 95+% of the Linux testers use? Seems to support the points i made. > Of the ppc reports, 10 would not affect x86 builds (due to being ppc > specific problems or dependencies on implicit includes that do happen on > x86). None of the reports against other arches would affect x86 builds. > > I also reported 31 warnings. 15 against x86, 15 against ppc and 1 against > both. Of those only reported against ppc, 13 did not affect x86. > > So of my "generic" reports, 4 errors and 2 warnings were reported against > ppc, 16 errors and 15 warnings again x86. > > Also, I am not sure how reports of 37 build errors and 32 warnings over 60 > days can tax the resources of our developer base. [...] Note that out of those 37 build errors only a small minority were caused by any tree i co-maintain. (i dont have the precise numbers but it's below 5) Why? Because i cross-build before pushing to linux-next. I bug people about cross-arch build failures, and about the patch flow delays and hickups this causes. Without that you'd see twice that many cross-build failures. Which in itself is not bad of course (any fix is a good fix) - except the forced prioritization and its place in the workflow: it sends the wrong testing message. It sends the message that building on N architectures is more important than for the code to work for real people. I've had good developers waste their time trying to set up cross-build testing environments and complain to me how this complicates their testing. > [...] Most of these are fairly trivial to fix (as is shown by how quick > they are fixed. Usually the developer has just forgotten to test the > !CONFIG_SOMETHING case or used some function without explicitly including > the file that declares it. > > As to my perceived pro-PowerPC and anti-x86 bias, you are the only one who > has even mentioned it to me. Have you asked me recently for example? > Anyway, I sick of these discussions. If people see the way I do linux-next > as a problem, then they can find someone else. That is not the impression I > gained at the Kernel Summit and (apart from these occasional "discussions") > I am quite happy to continue. Not sure how you jump from my observations to "I will quit if you do this". I am simply pointing out problems as i see them - as i do that with every piece of the workflow we use. I have expressed my views numerous times about where i find linux-next useful and positive - and it's sure a net positive. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |