Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@telecomint.eu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file
Message-ID: <20080225111707.GA7062@elte.hu>
References: <200802251058.30188.florian.fainelli@telecomint.eu> <20080225101433.GA30685@elte.hu> <20080225110858.GA32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080225110858.GA32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1064
Lines: 25


* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

> What I want is that e.g. after fiddling with kernel headers I want an 
> easy way of having much compile coverage. And my script that builds 
> all defconfig's is trivial (although it takes a day to finish).

no, i think you misunderstood me. I do allyesconfig testing to make sure 
the kernel is still generic enough on PC hardware - not to catch build 
breakage.

What i do against build breakage is randconfig testing. That catches far 
more build breakage than a few limited number of defconfigs would ever.

More defconfigs would just be a constant maintenance drag, they are 
rather pointless on PC hardware anyway (we'd have to have at least a few 
hundred of them for it to be meaningful as a "default config") and it 
does not really solve the problem either.

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