Re: [PATCH for 5.2 00/12] Restartable Sequences selftests updates

[shuah <shuah@kernel.org>]

On 5/3/19 1:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On May 3, 2019, at 2:53 PM, shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
> 
>> On 5/3/19 12:36 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> ----- On Apr 29, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>>> mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those rseq selftests updates are hereby submitted to Shuah Khan,
>>>> maintainer of kernel selftests, for the next merge window (5.2).
>>>>
>>>> They change the per-architecture pre-abort signatures to ensure those
>>>> are valid trap instructions.
>>>>
>>>> The way exit points are presented to debuggers is enhanced, ensuring
>>>> all exit points are present, so debuggers don't have to disassemble
>>>> rseq critical section to properly skip over them.
>>>>
>>>> Discussions with the glibc community is reaching a concensus of exposing
>>>> a __rseq_handled symbol from glibc to coexist with rseq early adopters.
>>>> Update the rseq selftest code to expose and use this symbol.
>>>>
>>>> Support for compiling asm goto with clang is added with the
>>>> "-no-integrated-as" compiler switch, similarly to the toplevel kernel
>>>> Makefile.
>>>
>>> Hi Shuah,
>>>
>>> Is there anything else you need before you can pick up those patches ?
>>>
>>
>> I was going to say "no more work needed" and noticed that the series has
>> checkpatch errors and warns as I was running the series through
>> pre-commit tests.
>>
>> Patches 1,2,3,8 have errors/warns based
>> on quick look at the log.
>>
>>
>> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '%' (ctx:WxV)
>> #227: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h:104:
>> +		RSEQ_ASM_CMP_CPU_ID(cpu_id, RSEQ_CPU_ID_OFFSET(%[rseq_abi]), %l[error1])
>>
>>
>> Will you be able to fix them and resend?
> 
> (CCing the che checkpatch maintainers)
> 
> checkpatch appears to be wrong for these errors. I suspect it thinks those are
> '%' modulo operators (for which the style requires space before/after),
> but those are actually part of the asm input and goto target operands.
> 
> Most warnings are about some lines over 80 cols. However, the areas where
> this happens is due to following the style of already upstream code which
> has the final "\" at the end of line sometimes beyond 80 col to accommodate
> macros that take a bit of horizontal real estate.
> 
> For patch 8, the warning about "availble" being a typo is right. The
> style error about space after "asm (" is right as well. Should I send only
> this updated patch to you or should I send the whole patchset again ?
> 

No need to send all patches. This is good.

thanks,
-- Shuah