On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:57:07PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > the existing 32-bit and 64-bit defconfigs should be enough for that.
> > > For better/full coverage, randconfig should be used.
> >
> > The two big problems with randconfigs are:
> > - either you build each .config both with and without your patch or you
> > have to manually check which of the failures are caused by your patch
> > - you require at least an order of magnitude more builds for having the
> > same amount of common configurations covered
> >
> > And any solution that only works on x86 (e.g. based on the expectation
> > that all randconfig configurations normally build) is of zero value
> > for me since x86 is only one out of 23 architectures.
>
> so if an arguably sane testing method "only" works on x86 then the right
> solution is to fix the other architectures to be sanely testable too.
If you want to fix them I won't stop you...
Until they are fixed I'm staying at using the defconfigs.
But then there's still the other problem that at least I simply don't
want to wait two weeks for having the test compiles of a patch finish.
> I've seen architectures that were build-tested for the _first time_ at
> around 2.6.24-rc8...
That can't be true.
Can you name what architectures you think of and why you think noone
tried to compile them before?
> Ingo
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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/
