From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761056AbYDUTzr (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:55:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755134AbYDUTzk (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:55:40 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56153 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754811AbYDUTzj (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:55:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:55:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Adrian Bunk , Alexey Starikovskiy , tglx@linutronix.de, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error Message-ID: <20080421195517.GH8770@elte.hu> References: <20080421000238.GD26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421085314.GI26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421120054.GA6788@elte.hu> <480C8FD6.3030700@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480C8FD6.3030700@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> thanks, the three patches below should fix it. >> >> i ended up excluding Voyager configs from our test space some time >> ago (and VISWS as well - there's one more visws fix in x86.git), >> that's how this broke. These subarchitectures seem not to be used at >> all and the code wont boot on normal PCs. We could mark it BROKEN but >> the fix seems simple in any case. > > I talked to jejb about this, and pretty much the consensus was that if > it breaks, mark it BROKEN, and let him come back and catch up. Under > those conditions, I'm willing to keep it in the tree. sure - but no need to be rude and mark it BROKEN when we've got this much better tool named "email". BROKEN is really just for cases where there's no-one willing to fix things. > VISWS is another matter. It's entirely possible I have the only > remaining VISWS in my garage; we have at least not been able to locate > another. Not that we have tried all that hard. > > If there are no VISWS' left, we should just unload the code. ok, but there we should first mark it BROKEN, and after 1-2 kernel releases remove it so that there's adequate notice. Ingo