[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160301094531.GA23893@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:45:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: sedat.dilek@...il.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> That is not the issue here. The problem is clearly that objtool is a host
> program and not compiled with host cc. So it is a good thing to test even
> though it is weird, because it affects real use cases.
Absolutely, it's a real bug that should be fixed. What is counterproductive is
that this rare and hard to replicate build modus is now a must-have test for
linux-next inclusion.
I already cross-build to 20+ weird, rarely used architectures, slowing down the
linux-next merge integration test immensely and wasting quite a bit of
electricity. linux-next making it even harder to test for is a step backwards.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists