* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
As i said it before, it's totally senseless to add zillions of
defconfigs to x86. The two that are there should be enough for a
sniff-test - and much more than that has to be done to ensure that a
patch doesnt break anything. Not even a 100 defconfigs would match
proper randconfig coverage.
according to one particular arbitrary piece of metrics [1], ~99.15% of
our testers use x86 - and the oopses collected on kerneloops.org show a
similar proportion.
> > 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?
sorry, s/build-tested/boot-tested.
there's been only 6 commits to arch/v850 between v2.6.23 and v2.6.24.
None of them seems to suggest that anyone ever tested v850 in the last
year or so.
Ingo
[1] http://smolt.fedoraproject.org
--
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/
