Hi Russell,

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:09:43 +0000 Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>=
 wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:02:08PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I will attempt to build the tree between each merge (and a failed build
> > will again cause the offending tree to be dropped).  These builds will =
be
quoted text
> > necessarily restricted to probably one architecture/config.  I will bui=
ld
quoted text
> > the entire tree on as many architectures/configs as seem sensible and
> > the results of that will be available on a web page (to be announced).
>=20
> This restriction means that the value for the ARM architecture is soo
> limited it's probably not worth the hastle participating in this project.
>=20
> We already know that -mm picks up on very few ARM conflicts because
> Andrew doesn't run through the entire set of configurations; unfortunately
> ARM is one of those architectures which is very diverse [*], and because
> of that, ideas like "allyconfig" are just completely irrelevant to it.
>=20
> As mentioned elsewhere, what we need for ARM is to extend the kautobuild
> infrastructure (see armlinux.simtec.co.uk) so that we can have more trees
> at least compile tested regularly - but that requires the folk there to
> have additional compute power (which isn't going to happen unless folk
> stamp up some machines _or_ funding).

I now have an arm cross compiler (gcc-4.0.2-glibc-2.3.6
arm-unknown-linux-gnu).  (See the results page at
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ - I must get a better
name/place :-(.)  Is this sufficient to help you out?  What configs would
be useful to build (as Andrew said, they don't take very long each).

I really want as many subsystems as possible in the linux-next tree in an
attempt to avoid some of the merge/conflict problems we have had in the
past.  What can we do to help?

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/