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

["Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>]

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