This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:41:10 -0800, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > Thomas did you run a test build and testsuite run for both sparc32 and > sparc64 on those Sparc NPTL changes you checked in today? You mean ``Get rid of superfluous assignments in sem_timedwait'', I guess? I just posted the patch; Ulrich checked it in. > I do that for every change I commit, and as sparc glibc maintainer > since it's my responsibility I'd appreciate it if either you > explicitly state you did the full validation or you ask me to do > so for you. I have not tested it. I should have CCed you when submitting it. But then, it really is obvious from looking at the code. Generally, I agree about testing, but in some cases I suggest that we can go by peer patch review instead of spending a considerable amount of time for setting up testing, etc. (It's not that the glibc testsuite would be prepared for catching all kinds of errors; it's just *one* affirmation that a patch doesn't break anything. You can change a lot of glibc code without the testsuite triggering. Of course, obviously, the testsuite still does have its right to exist, but it's not the only method for testing a patch.) The same applies to the additional cleanup patches that I posted in this very thread. In my opinion, these can also be committed without testsuite testing, after having been reviewed by someone else. Comments? GrÃÃe, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |