Re: linux-next requiements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Addsupport for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:07:10 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I'll keep them in tip:master to get them tested, but note that i cannot 
> > push any of these patches into linux-next until this is fixed, as 
> > linux-next requires all architectures to build, with no regard to which 
> > architectures are tested by kernel testers in practice.
> 
> I merely expect people not to push known broken code into linux-next.

FYI, this 'mere' kind of indiscriminate definition of 'breakage' is what i am 
talking about.

The occasional driver build breakage can be tested relatively easily: one 
allyesconfig build and it's done. Build testing 22 architectures is 
exponentially harder: it requires the setup (and constant maintenance) of 
zillions of tool-chains, plus the build time is significant as well.

So this kind of linux-next requirement causes the over-testing of code that 
doesnt get all that much active usage, plus it increases build testing 
overhead 10-fold. That, by definition, causes the under-testing of code that 
_does_ matter a whole lot more to active testers of the Linux kernel.

Which is a problem, obviously.

	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/