On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 13:24 +0000, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > > > I don't think it's reasonable to commit this as obvious. You said > > yourself in the covering message that "it doesn't at all restore > > the original behaviour since we no longer compare the base address". > > So even with the bootstrap failure, I think the patch needed review > > before going in. > > > > Christophe's message doesn't change anything because you knew when you > > posted the patch that it fixed the failure. > Well my understanding was that it is OK to fix a bootstrap failure. I believe > my > patch is trivial since it mostly removes redundant code. Also I took Jakub's > review as an OK as there were no technical objections. However since you > seem to disagree, I will revert it. > > We have now had 5 days of no builds for a major target, which is a huge > inconvenience. So I don't think it is reasonable to wait any longer. > The alternative is to revert the original patch that caused the bootstrap > failure > plus the patch(es) that unexpectedly changed the behaviour of the scheduler > (I don't think there was any testing as to what effect those had on the > schedule). > > So the question is who will do that and when? > > Wilco
The aarch64 bootstrap is still broken. I am adding the scheduler maintainers to the CC list on this email to see if one on them can review/approve Wilco's patch which was applied and then reverted. If not, can one of the global maintainers revert the original patch that broke the bootstrap? Steve Ellcey sell...@cavium.com
