In-Reply-To: <20090624070708.GI6760@one.firstfloor.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files
Message-ID: <OFBE328A69.2A153130-ON482575E0.000D6758-482575E0.0010F631@sunplusct.com>
From: liqin.chen@sunplusct.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:00:22 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1134
Lines: 29

linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org д?? 2009-06-24 15:07:08:

> The problem is just that if the code is not tested in its
> current configuration it will most likely not work (unless you're a 
perfect 
> coder, but most of us are not). And merging code that doesn't work 
doesn't
> make sense.
> 
> The need for a full retest after the changes inspired by review
> feedback is somewhat annoying -- I agree -- but there's really
> no way around it that I know.
> 
> BTW I'm not saying that LTP is the perfect user test (it's definitely
> not), but it's a relatively useful basic sanity check and you
> should pass something like this at least. Other real user testing would
> be still needed too of course then.

Thanks Andi,

In fact, what I worry about is leaving score outside upstream,
Few person will pay attation to asm-generic/score patches.
When score kernel/glibc finish its update and passed LTP,
We still could not catch up people's suggestion.

Best Regards
Liqin

????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?