Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:39:14 +0200 | From | Thomas Weißschuh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage |
| |
On 2023-10-12 11:25:02-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [..]
> > 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.)
Looks good. But it's only a listing of the commit subjects, correct?
> 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.
All patches went through the lists as part of the normal developent flow. They were not posted after rebasing.
For transparency I did the following follow-up changes:
* The rebase of "tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak" required some minor changes to resolve conflicts. * reword the message of "tools/nolibc: drop test for getauxval(AT_PAGESZ)" slightly. * simplify the includes intruduced by "selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage".
> We reset the -next testing clock, so if all goes well, then I send the > three urgent commits to Linus on Monday.
Sounds good, thanks!
Thomas
| |