Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage

[Paul E. McKenney]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > 
> > > > For these two patches: Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > 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