From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2FBC6FD1C for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 07:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229990AbjCVHpQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 03:45:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51782 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229912AbjCVHpN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 03:45:13 -0400 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD00D457C5 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:45:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1679471110; x=1711007110; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=RYefIU0H1tV7oRs3iK9qN/VFbE6LPVzSiwMg5YgkybQ=; b=IeiaYArwuHY1pwiwDRsgq0ID00TQFcUq+xkMuOUH1zgHlLJ9bLzGlI9A THdfjl8nCg0wdGUQywK4X/WaQAk4p8gnGNCHfQqcRbegOpcPi6qC5f92a FE8nEimxBUTv2we8edrD1S5c1AHEO87VOCwoSrLyRlDFtIQ9iDVoSRbun apDros7z4eo65/3LgOmVDjkocDIAizLUWB2pRSXKnzAWk3G9x0awk5B8h rommvkrWOhdZvpWv7rmFdksUen0NSMIyrrhpPCkgoWrcavMV1DMfnsbFY sqzT5A5N49n1Zx7RpcZx/u8PT9zGPydqzMTJRj5tMfr9Q+SCW8rQbbUDw A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,281,1673938800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="202832350" Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa4.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 22 Mar 2023 00:45:09 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:45:08 -0700 Received: from wendy (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:45:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 07:56:18 +0000 From: Conor Dooley To: Leonardo Bras Soares Passos CC: Conor Dooley , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Guo Ren , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Deduplicating RISCV cmpxchg.h macros Message-ID: <76e39a0e-1ca9-435a-82b5-6655579cef9a@spud> References: <20230318080059.1109286-1-leobras@redhat.com> <8f698f49-135a-4263-8471-96f406919cb1@spud> <4f35f41c143b02b6b815e7eb527ca3acd8b4aabe.camel@redhat.com> <18e07d0a-7e21-46d0-9166-6ee07817352a@spud> <4d9770c7-3cb6-42d6-891f-1247a02742e9@spud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zA6GcOdC/jSQ4LTZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --zA6GcOdC/jSQ4LTZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:42:56AM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 4:48=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley w= rote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 02:01:59PM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos w= rote: > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 4:49=E2=80=AFAM Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 03:30:35AM -0300, Leonardo Br=C3=A1s wrote: > > > > > For patch 5/6 it actually adds many more lines, but tracking (som= e of) the > > > > > errors gave me no idea why. > > > > > > > > Probably just sparse being unhappy with some way the macros were > > > > changed - but some of it ("Should it be static?" bits) look very mu= ch > > > > like the patch causing things to be rebuilt only for the "after the > > > > patch" build, but somehow not for the "before" build. > > > > > > Humm, not sure I could understand that last part: > > > What I get is that the patch 5/6 is causing things to be rebuilt, and > > > it was not like that on 1-4/6. > > > Is that what you said? > > > If so, and you are doing it as an incremental build, changing the > > > macros in 5/6 should be triggering rebuilds, but it does not make > > > sense to not be rebuilt in 1-4/6 as they change the same macros. > > > > Right, it is an incremental build. > > First it builds the tree with a patch applied, then it checks out HEAD~1 > > and builds that tree. Then it goes back to the tree with the patch > > applied and builds it again. The output from builds 2 & 3 are compared > > to see if any errors snuck in. > > In theory, that should ensure that, as builds 2 & 3 have had the same > > diff to the previous one just in opposite directions, the same files get > > rebuilt - but I am a little worried that ccache gets involved sometimes > > and leads to the before/after builds not being exactly the same. >=20 > Makes sense to me. Oh, the other thing that I didn't notice until now is that, if, as in your case, HEAD~1 for the patch currently being tested does not build but the HEAD build does, the HEAD build will have more sparse coverage than the HEAD~1 one. Cos of that, sparse is likely to find more issues in the after build, and you end up with +1000 error count like patch 5 in the v1. If you look at your most recent version, that doesn't have build issues, patch 5 gets the all-clear: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/?series=3D732217 Not sure why I didn't notice that before, I completely forgot that 4/6 had build issues and it should've been immediately obvious to me why 5/6 had a bunch of extra sparse warnings... --zA6GcOdC/jSQ4LTZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZBq0ngAKCRB4tDGHoIJi 0glZAQCLTV6fmIThzea60AfrZGhW2ChbeyHWwHwcml5KyOItzwEAt6XoV0kTQhDk ocbElrRZ1d8ZR65TbcjJCvk3ur1adgU= =u33Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zA6GcOdC/jSQ4LTZ--