Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:45:49 +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: <20080225134549.GA4481@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> <20080225115022.GA16376@elte.hu> <20080225122526.GE32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080225125707.GA27202@elte.hu> <20080225131202.GF32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080225131202.GF32450@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1485
Lines: 43


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