Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:42:38 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:00 -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > >> I shouldn't send bug reports at 3 in the morning... > >> > >> Attached is the .config for both Voyager build errors I reported. > > > > 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 did actually try to avoid these problems by booting the -mc tree on voyager, but I note that none of these issues showed up in that tree the last time I did this (admittedly about 3 weeks ago because of various conferences etc).
> 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.
I didn't say mark it as BROKEN ... I did say I'd catch up. However, it's usually best to begin trying to fix voyager around the -rc1 phase since that's when the tree becomes stable again.
> 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.
I certainly don't have one. I just designed the subarchitectures to be able to support it because it was a bit far away from x86 references, and Andrey Panin was interested in supporting it at the time ... if he's no longer doing that, then it can be removed.
James
| |