[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4AD6EB17020000780001A050@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:27:51 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@...ibm.com>
Cc: <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com> 15.10.09 00:57 >>>
>On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:14 -0700, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and
>> also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap:
>>
>> original: built but didn't work
>> Jan's: doesn't build
>> Rusty's: builds and works
>>
>> Where do you want to go from here?
>
>Jan, what are your thoughts? Your BUILD_BUG_ON patch has broken the
>build, and we still need to fix it.
My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness. And
honestly, I won't be able to get to look into this within the next days. (And
btw., when I run into issues with other people's code changes, quite
frequently I'm told to propose a patch, so I'm also having some
philosophical problem understanding why I can't simply expect the same
when people run into issues with changes I made, especially in cases like
this where it wasn't me introducing the broken code.) So, if this can wait
for a couple of days, I can try to find time to look into this. Otherwise, I'd
rely on someone running into the actual issue to implement a solution.
Jan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists