Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755728AbYBYLuy (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:50:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754029AbYBYLur (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:50:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45479 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753919AbYBYLuq (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:50:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:50:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Florian Fainelli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file Message-ID: <20080225115022.GA16376@elte.hu> References: <200802251058.30188.florian.fainelli@telecomint.eu> <20080225101433.GA30685@elte.hu> <20080225110858.GA32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080225111707.GA7062@elte.hu> <20080225113235.GC32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080225113235.GC32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1604 Lines: 39 * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > What i do against build breakage is randconfig testing. That catches > > far more build breakage than a few limited number of defconfigs > > would ever. > > How do you test whether a x86 merge might break the compilation of > e.g. some ARM platform without using any defconfig? yes, we do test that too. (we added this recently) > And building all defconfigs is the trivial way of having most > reasonable configurations covered with only one day of compile time. the existing 32-bit and 64-bit defconfigs should be enough for that. For better/full coverage, randconfig should be used. > > 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. > > My goal was "one per subarchitecture" which is not such a big number. at least on x86 subarchitectures are not at all that important (they are a rather inflexible build-time concept), and as you have seen it in this thread, we are working on reducing their count. 99% of the real hardware is covered under the generic subarchitecture. they are more important on other (mostly embedded) platforms, with ARM having 75 defconfigs. 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/