From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755778AbYDUWcS (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:32:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753040AbYDUWcF (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:32:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57371 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753249AbYDUWcE (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:32:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:31:42 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Adrian Bunk Cc: James Bottomley , Alexey Starikovskiy , tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error Message-ID: <20080421223142.GA18140@elte.hu> References: <20080421000238.GD26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421085314.GI26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421120054.GA6788@elte.hu> <1208793533.3640.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080421195148.GG8770@elte.hu> <20080421200949.GB2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421201352.GM8770@elte.hu> <20080421202605.GC2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421202919.GA28069@elte.hu> <20080421210232.GD2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080421210232.GD2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:29:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ok, that's good enough - that's why i excluded it from the > > > > > > auto-qa test-space as well. Adrian, could you please remove > > > > > > it from your config testset as well? If a user enables that > > > > > > config option it wont boot anyway so it's not a problem in > > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > Who said that Voyager won't boot? > > > > > > > > Adrian, you build Voyager kernels so just try to boot it once on > > > > your PC and watch the show ... > > > > > > Ingo, an ia64 kernel also won't boot on my computer, and I'll > > > still compile test my patches for ia64 ... > > > > dont be silly... the ia64 kernel is not under arch/x86, it's not > > even the same instruction format. Voyager runs on x86 CPUs and is > > part of the x86 architecture tree. > > Your point is? my point is what i said and which you apparently did not understand: | Adrian, could you please remove it from your config testset as well? | If a user enables that config option it wont boot anyway so it's not a | problem in practice. > I'm compile testing 22 architectures (especially when sending my own > patches), and whether a kernel would boot on my computer doesn't make > any difference. a user wont 'accidentally' install a crosscompiler toolchain to create an unbootable kernel... Ingo