Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35

From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 11:21:38 EST

On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:01:35 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It was discussed on linux-kernel -- note that there is no breakage for
> smaller architectures unless you enable the test directly or via randconfig.

or allmodconfig or allyesconfig.

> The other part is that generic atomic64_t has been available since
> middle of 2009, and was *also* discussed extensively on linux-kernel --
> in fact, several of the smaller architectures added support at that
> time. That the breakage occurred because of an inconsequential test
> rather than real code is thus really nothing but fortunate.

I don't disagree with any of that (except that an m68k allmodconfig build
may well build fine without the test being built so maybe building the
test needs a dependency).

My point was that I keep hearing the "Linus said it is OK to break the
other architectures" argument brought up where it really is not even
relevant to the conversation. If anything, I guess Geert was taking a
little dig at me because his problem should have been noticed among my
build results. Unfortunately even I don't check all the build results all
the time (I guess I hope that maintainers may have time to check them out
once in a while).

Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature