linux-next build status

linux-next build status

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 370 bytes --]

Hi all,

Initial status can be seen here
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
wishes.  :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: linux-next build status

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:42:53AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Initial status can be seen here
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
> URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
> welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
> wishes.  :-)

defconfigs for _all_ architectures (like what Jan does since many years 
for all -mm and -git (and previously -bk) kernels [1]).

If you want to duplicate what Jan already does you might also want to 
copy his layout since it's very convenient to see everything on his 
page without having to scroll vertically.

cu
Adrian

[1] http://l4x.org/k/

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: linux-next build status

[Chris Snook]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Initial status can be seen here
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
> URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
> welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
> wishes.  :-)
> 

i386 allmodconfig please.

Also, I highly recommend adding some randconfig builds, at least one 32-bit arch 
and one 64-bit arch.  Any given randconfig build is not particularly likely to 
catch bugs that would be missed elsewhere, but doing them daily for two months 
will catch a lot of things before they get released.  The catch, of course, is 
that you have to actually save the .config for this to be useful, which might 
require a slight modification to your scripts.

	-- Chris

Re: linux-next build status

[Tony Breeds]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:24:27PM -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Initial status can be seen here
> >http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
> >URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
> >welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
> >wishes.  :-)
> >
> 
> i386 allmodconfig please.

Wont i386 allmodconfig be equivalent to x86_64 allmodconfig?

Yours Tony

  linux.conf.au        http://linux.conf.au/ || http://lca2008.linux.org.au/
  Jan 28 - Feb 02 2008 The Australian Linux Technical Conference!

Re: linux-next build status

[Chris Snook]

Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:24:27PM -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
>> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Initial status can be seen here
>>> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
>>> URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
>>> welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
>>> wishes.  :-)
>>>
>> i386 allmodconfig please.
> 
> Wont i386 allmodconfig be equivalent to x86_64 allmodconfig?

Only if there are no bugs.

Driver code is most likely to trip over bitness/endianness bugs, and 
you've already got allmodconfig builds for be32, be64, and le64 
architectures.  Adding an le32 architecture (i386) completes the 
coverage of these basic categories.

	-- Chris

Re: linux-next build status

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:53:48 -0500 Chris Snook wrote:

> Tony Breeds wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:24:27PM -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
> >> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Initial status can be seen here
> >>> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
> >>> URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
> >>> welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
> >>> wishes.  :-)
> >>>
> >> i386 allmodconfig please.
> > 
> > Wont i386 allmodconfig be equivalent to x86_64 allmodconfig?
> 
> Only if there are no bugs.
> 
> Driver code is most likely to trip over bitness/endianness bugs, and 
> you've already got allmodconfig builds for be32, be64, and le64 
> architectures.  Adding an le32 architecture (i386) completes the 
> coverage of these basic categories.

x86_64 doesn't compile ISA drivers (last time I checked).
Could be a few other subtle differences.

---
~Randy

Re: linux-next build status

[Michael Ellerman]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > Initial status can be seen here
>  > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ (I hope to make a better
>  > URL soon).  Suggestions for more compiler/config combinations are
>  > welcome, but we can't necessarily commit to fulfilling all you
>  > wishes.  :-)
>  >
>
>  i386 allmodconfig please.
>
>  Also, I highly recommend adding some randconfig builds, at least one 32-bit arch
>  and one 64-bit arch.  Any given randconfig build is not particularly likely to
>  catch bugs that would be missed elsewhere, but doing them daily for two months
>  will catch a lot of things before they get released.  The catch, of course, is
>  that you have to actually save the .config for this to be useful, which might
>  require a slight modification to your scripts.

It does save the configs, so randconfig might be an option. I'll look
at it next week.

cheers