Re: [PATCH for 5.2 00/12] Restartable Sequences selftests updates

[shuah]

On 5/3/19 1:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On May 3, 2019, at 2:53 PM, shuah shuah@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > On 5/3/19 12:36 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > ----- On Apr 29, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > Those rseq selftests updates are hereby submitted to Shuah Khan,
> > > > maintainer of kernel selftests, for the next merge window (5.2).
> > > >
> > > > They change the per-architecture pre-abort signatures to ensure those
> > > > are valid trap instructions.
> > > >
> > > > The way exit points are presented to debuggers is enhanced, ensuring
> > > > all exit points are present, so debuggers don't have to disassemble
> > > > rseq critical section to properly skip over them.
> > > >
> > > > Discussions with the glibc community is reaching a concensus of exposing
> > > > a __rseq_handled symbol from glibc to coexist with rseq early adopters.
> > > > Update the rseq selftest code to expose and use this symbol.
> > > >
> > > > Support for compiling asm goto with clang is added with the
> > > > "-no-integrated-as" compiler switch, similarly to the toplevel kernel
> > > > Makefile.
> > >
> > > Hi Shuah,
> > >
> > > Is there anything else you need before you can pick up those patches ?
> >
> > I was going to say "no more work needed" and noticed that the series has
> > checkpatch errors and warns as I was running the series through
> > pre-commit tests.
> >
> > Patches 1,2,3,8 have errors/warns based
> > on quick look at the log.
> >
> >
> > ERROR: need consistent spacing around '%' (ctx:WxV)
> > #227: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h:104:
> > +		RSEQ_ASM_CMP_CPU_ID(cpu_id, RSEQ_CPU_ID_OFFSET(%[rseq_abi]), %l[error1])
> >
> >
> > Will you be able to fix them and resend?
>
> (CCing the che checkpatch maintainers)
>
> checkpatch appears to be wrong for these errors. I suspect it thinks those are
> '%' modulo operators (for which the style requires space before/after),
> but those are actually part of the asm input and goto target operands.
>
> Most warnings are about some lines over 80 cols. However, the areas where
> this happens is due to following the style of already upstream code which
> has the final "\" at the end of line sometimes beyond 80 col to accommodate
> macros that take a bit of horizontal real estate.
>
> For patch 8, the warning about "availble" being a typo is right. The
> style error about space after "asm (" is right as well. Should I send only
> this updated patch to you or should I send the whole patchset again ?

No need to send all patches. This is good.

thanks,
-- Shuah