linux-kernel - Re: linux-next requirements

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:31:06 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, roland@...hat.com,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hjl.tools@...il.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next requirements

On Saturday 27 February 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 20:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 February 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > Lets see.  Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors.  Of
> >> > > > these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other
> >> > > > archs.
> >> > >
> >> > > So only 43% of them were even relevant on the platform that 95+% of the
> >> > > Linux testers use? Seems to support the points i made.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I hope you don't mean that because the majority of bug reporters (vs
> >> > testers, the number of whom is unknown to me at least) use x86, we are free
> >> > to break the other architectures. ;-)
> >>
> >> It means exactly that: just like we 'can' break compilation with gcc296,
> >> ancient versions of binutils, odd bootloaders, can break the boot via odd
> >> hardware, etc. When someone uses that architectures then the 'easy' bugfixes
> >> will actually flow in very quickly and without much fuss
> >
> > Then I don't understand what the problem with getting them in at the linux-next
> > stage is.  They are necessary anyway, so we'll need to add them sooner or
> > later and IMO the sooner the better.
> >
> > Apart from this, that cross-build issues aren't always "easy" and sometimes
> > they take quite some time and engineering effort to resolve.  IMO that's better
> > done at the linux-next stage than during a merge window.
> >
> >> - and without burdening developers to consider cases they have no good ways
> >> to test.  Why should rare architectures be more important than those other
> >> rare forms of Linux usage?
> >
> > Because the Linus' tree is supposed to build on those architectures.  As long
> > as that's the case, linux-next should build on them too.
> >
> >> In fact those rare ways of building and booting the kernel i mentioned are
> >> probably used _more_ than half of the architectures that linux-next
> >> build-tests ...
> >
> > I don't know and you don't know either.  That's just pure speculation and
> > therefore meaningless.
> 
> If only the CE Linux Forum member companies would publish figures about the
> number of Linux devices they push onto the world population...
> 
> Yes I know, this still excludes `obsolete' architectures like parisc
> and alpha, but it would
> change the balance towards x86 (and powerpc?) drastically.

You apparently forgot about ARM.

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