* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What i do against build breakage is randconfig testing. That catches
> > far more build breakage than a few limited number of defconfigs
> > would ever.
>
> How do you test whether a x86 merge might break the compilation of
> e.g. some ARM platform without using any defconfig?
yes, we do test that too. (we added this recently)
> And building all defconfigs is the trivial way of having most
> reasonable configurations covered with only one day of compile time.
the existing 32-bit and 64-bit defconfigs should be enough for that. For
better/full coverage, randconfig should be used.
> > More defconfigs would just be a constant maintenance drag, they are
> > rather pointless on PC hardware anyway (we'd have to have at least a
> > few hundred of them for it to be meaningful as a "default config")
> > and it does not really solve the problem either.
>
> My goal was "one per subarchitecture" which is not such a big number.
at least on x86 subarchitectures are not at all that important (they are
a rather inflexible build-time concept), and as you have seen it in this
thread, we are working on reducing their count. 99% of the real hardware
is covered under the generic subarchitecture.
they are more important on other (mostly embedded) platforms, with ARM
having 75 defconfigs.
Ingo
--
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/
