On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:50:17PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/20/2013 02:45 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > [meanwhile I posted V6 with the acked-by of linusw and others, that > > were missing in V5] > > > > rmk: > >>> I'm happy to take it through my tree if everyone is now happy with this. > > > > hpa: > >> I am okay with that, although I would like to make sure we do a bunch of > >> x86 randconfigs on it before pushing it to Linus. > > > > I did like this: > > - disable STA2X11 (and thus AMBA) and build > > - enable STA2X11, answer y to all new questions and build > > > > So there's nothing left (you'll have two unrelated warnings, that I'm > > working on and I'll post a fix tomorrow). Sure, Peter, first time I > > didn't do that test and missed some of the drivers. > > > > I was just concerned that rmk wouldn't necessarily do those tests as a > matter of process. > > So Russell -- how do you want to handle this? Should I take them (and > ask Ingo to put them through his test machinery) or do you want to (and > run x86 randconfigs as part of your testing)?
Well, I'm happy to take the non-x86 bits if that's what others want (for the _next_ merge window, not this one.) That _should_ result in x86 not seeing this stuff until it gets the ARM_AMBA definition enabled, and giving it a full cycle of testing. However, if we want to keep the patch set together and route it via another tree, I'm also fine with that too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
