Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:25:02 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage |
| |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:51:28PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2023-10-12 03:41:50-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > Hi Willy, Paul, > > > > > > On 2023-10-12 09:06:33+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:13:37AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > > While uncommon, nolibc executables can be linked together from multiple > > > > > compilation units. > > > > > Add some tests to make sure everything works in that case. > > > > (...) > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net> > > > > > --- > > > > > Note: > > > > > > > > > > This depends on path "tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak". > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231012-nolibc-start_c-multiple-v1-1-fbfc73e0283f@weissschuh.net/ > > > > > > > > For these two patches: Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > > > > > > Thanks, applied locally. > > > > > > I guess the linked patch "tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak" should > > > also go into nolibc/fixes. > > > > > > @Paul, would it introduce too much churn for you if I submit another > > > nolibc pull with an updated nolibc/fixes? > > > (And the rebased nolibc/next with this commit while we are at it) > > > > Not a problem this week! > > Great, then: > > Please pull the changes since the v6.6-rc1 tag from > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git/ > > The branch 'fixes' up to and including > 90864f0679fdbb3b2e1c3bdbe4b0a34df785cb0a for the v6.6 cycle. > > The branch 'next' up to and including > f2c7923763dae51226584494722349fef4df3748 for linux-next. > > The branch 'next', based upon 'fixes', was tested as follows: > > i386: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > x86_64: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > arm64: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > arm: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > mips: 162 test(s): 161 passed, 1 skipped, 0 failed => status: warning > ppc: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > ppc64: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > ppc64le: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > riscv: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success > s390: 162 test(s): 161 passed, 1 skipped, 0 failed => status: warning > loongarch: 162 test(s): 161 passed, 1 skipped, 0 failed => status: warning
I have a signed tag urgent/nolibc.2023.10.12a in the -rcu tree, so please check the lead-in text for sanity. (Everything after the digital signature is automatically generated.)
Testing for urgent/nolibc.2023.10.12a: make run: 160 test(s): 160 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success make run-user: 160 test(s): 158 passed, 2 skipped, 0 failed => status: warning
Testing for full nolibc stack: make run: 162 test(s): 162 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed => status: success make run-user: 162 test(s): 160 passed, 2 skipped, 0 failed => status: warning
> > But after about Wednesday of next week, getting things into the upcoming > > merge window is pretty much as fast as sending them quickly to Linus, > > if that makes sense. Unless there is to be a -rc8 this time, but I > > have heard no sign of that. > > > > Make sense? > > Sure, hopefully no more fixes are needed!
Ah, and have these been posted to a public mailing list? If not, then I need to send them out.
We reset the -next testing clock, so if all goes well, then I send the three urgent commits to Linus on Monday.
Thanx, Paul
| |