Re: [rfc] the kernel workflow & trivial "global -> static" patches (was: Re: [2.6 patch] make sched_feat_{names,open} static)

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:45:15 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:51:32PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > can we do a "make patchcheck" kernel build target that would
> > * run checkpatch on teh patch
> > * build the kernel without the patch (in various .configs, probably
> > allyesconfig / allmodconfig is enough, but we can figure this out
> > later)
> > * apply the patch
> > * build the kernel in the same configs
> > * build a kernel for install that has the 'standard debug options'
> > on (lockdep, slabpoison etc)
> > then we can
> > * compare if new gcc warnings got introduced
> > * compare if major stack usage got introduced
> > * compare if namespace_check and some of the others introduce new
> > issues
> > * compare if new sparse warnings got introduced
> > and maybe even run a bloat-o-meter to show code growth/shrinkage
> > [insert other useful checks here]
> > 
> > if all of that is just one command away, I bet quite a few people
> > would use it
> > (and the more useful it gets the more people will use it)
> 
> I'm not sure we could do it for every single patch (because of the
> time it would take), 

I don't think build power is an actual problem for things like this,
since it tends to distribute really well.