Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc for 6.11-rc1

[Willy Tarreau]

Hello Paul,

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 08:16:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 09:06:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 01:04:08PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > The following changes since commit f2661062f16b2de5d7b6a5c42a9a5c96326b8454:
> > > 
> > >   Linux 6.10-rc5 (2024-06-23 17:08:54 -0400)
> > > 
> > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nolibc/linux-nolibc.git tags/nolibc-20240629-for-6.11-1
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to 6ca8f2e20bd1ced8a7cd12b3ae4b1ceca85cfc2b:
> > > 
> > >   selftests: kselftest: also use strerror() on nolibc (2024-06-29 09:44:58 +0200)
> > 
> > Hearing no objections, I have pulled this in so that it will appear
> > in the next -next.  Here are the test results:
> > 
> > make run:
> > 195 test(s): 195 passed,   0 skipped,   0 failed => status: success
> > 
> > make run-user:
> > 195 test(s): 193 passed,   2 skipped,   0 failed => status: warning
> > 
> > So looks good to me!
> 
> And please see below for my proposed signed tag.  Please let me know of
> any needed adjustments.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> tag nolibc.2024.07.12a
> Tagger: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Fri Jul 12 16:56:21 2024 -0700
> 
> nolibc updates for v6.11
> 
> o	Fix selftest printf format mismatch in expect_str_buf_eq()
> 
> o	Stop using brk() and sbrk() when testing against musl, which
> 	implements these two functions with ENOMEM.
> 
> o	Make tests us -Werror to force failure on compiler warnings.
                   ^^
s/us/use

> o	Add limits for the {u,}intmax_t, ulong and {u,}llong types.
> 
> o	Implement strtol() and friends.
> 
> o	Add facility to skip nolibc-specific tests when running against
> 	non-nolibc libraries.
> 
> o	Implement strerror().
> 
> o	Use strerror() unconditionally, instead of only when running
> 	against non-nolibc libraries.

All of this looks good to me.

Thank you!
Willy