From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761282AbYDQImB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:42:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755931AbYDQIlw (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:41:52 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:33439 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755721AbYDQIlv (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:41:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:40:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26 Message-Id: <20080417014054.ea788f1f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080417083000.GA4935@elte.hu> References: <20080416202338.GA6007@elte.hu> <20080417002552.5742ad65.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417083000.GA4935@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:30:00 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:23:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > How much of this has not been in linux-next? > > none. That's a relief. Please keep it this way - I plan on basing -mm on linux-next after 2.6.26-rc1 and that should prevent reoccurrences. > but we do much more testing than just getting code into other trees. We > cross-build 96 different configurations on other non-x86 architectures: > > http://www.tglx.de/autoqa-cgi/index?run=81&tree=1 > > last night's run was: 96 out of 96 configs built successfully. > > This covers: alpha, arm, mips, powerpc, sparc64, x86, m32r, powerpc, > xtensa, mips, sh, sparc, parisc, powerpc. We test the various branches > (amongst them for-akpm) and combination trees as well. > > and the backbone of arch/x86 QA we do are the build, boot and stress > tests we do on x86: we ran and booted thousands of x86 randconfigs in > the past few days alone. x86/latest boots and works from the smallest > boxes up to a 64-way testbox. On the 64-way box i did a 1 week burn-in > stress-test last week as well, for any longer-term effects. That's nowhere as useful as it could be. By keeping all this code out of -mm you haven't solved any of the merge/integration problems which we had in 2.6.24-rcX. They're all still there. All you did was to push them out of the two-month integrate-and-test period and put them into the 2.6.25 merge window instead. > > > - ftrace plugin for sysprof > > > > sysprof is crap. > > you mean the original hack? Sure, that had a number of problems and we > are not offering that for a merge. whew. > But have you seen the latest code we are offering for merge? No. Was it ever sent out for review? > Check out > sched-devel/latest and kernel/trace/trace_sysprof.c. Nicely generalized > on top of stacktrace.h, put into the ftrace framework, userspace has > been ported to that too. No more special sysprof-only API hack. Would prefer to not have to go fishing in git trees to find code to review.