Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file

[Ingo Molnar]

* Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. 
I've seen architectures that were build-tested for the _first time_ at 
around 2.6.24-rc8...

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/