Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file

[Ingo Molnar]

* Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/