On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:48:30 +0000 Russell King wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:32:46PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:34:38 +0000 Russell King wrote:
> > > > The whole "all*config" idea on ARM is utterly useless - you can _not_
> > > > get build coverage that way.
> > >
> > > Uh, can J. Random Developer submit patches to the ARM build system
> > > for testing?
> >
> > Given that it takes about 8 to 12 hours to do a build cycle, that's
> > not practical. The only real solution is for us to accept that
> > breakage will occur (and be prepared to keep a steady stream of
> > fixes heading into Linus' tree - which has been ruled out by Linus)
> > or J. Random Developer has to build a set of affected ARM defconfigs
> > themselves.
>
> I guess I don't get it. Isn't that what we just went thru
> with the struct nightmare^W work_struct changes?
> But these header file changes are much simpler and more obvious...
Well, I think it's practical to build all arm configs yourself. I'll do
that for my sched.h #include changes. It's been less that two hours since
I started the builds on two cpus and I already got 35 out of 59 configs.
It's just that one has to be aware of it. Before Russell's post the
situation on arm seemed so confusing to me that I thought I'd just
compile allnoconfig, defconfig, allmodconfig and allyesconfig and let the
arm people figure out the rest.
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
