Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:44:26PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> I guess Adrian is trying to say:
>>
>> 'That code is in tree, so it should compile and run. He can't verify
>> it runs, but he's trying to make sure it at least compiles.'
>>
>> For 'normal' users it is not a problem.
>> 							Pavel
>
> This is fine, except it is an unreasonable request when there are fewer  
> existing machines than people contributing to this tree.  For a lot of  
> people, compile bandwidth is what is limiting their ability to 
> contribute.

I'm not claiming it was the end of the world if someone accidentally 
breaks Voyager.

But Ingo wanted me to stop to sometimes compile test Voyager.

> James has offered to fix up Voyager breakage a posteori, and that is the  
> appropriate action for a niche architecture like this.

I'm still not getting the point why we should ever wait for James for 
doing things like
-       select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB
+       select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB if !X86_VOYAGER

And the other compile breakages we had recently weren't much worse.

I fully agree that it makes sense that Voyager problems should not be 
showstoppers and that James is the one capable and responsible of fixing 
non-trivial issues.

> 	-hpa

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "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