From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>, Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Fix arm64 test installation Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:00:32 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <8768fa96-004f-4e81-a380-a1a7784ad59c@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <04724b21-6c7c-8584-fd17-9222051dc99d@nvidia.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --] On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:10:14PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 7/10/23 15:30, Mark Brown wrote: > > There is a floor on binutils version for the kselftests that's more > > aggressive than that for the kernel itself, though that looks like RHEL > > 8 which has binutils 2.30 which *should* be fine for most things - the > > MTE tests won't build but they do have version detection so should skip, > > I guess you might have trouble with PAC support which doesn't have > > detection in the tests? It's certainly old enough that I'm surprised to > > hear someone doing development for anything current with it. > This used to be a development machine, but now it is sufficiently old > that it is lightly used--that would explain how I could reserve it on > short notice for this. Maybe I'll adopt it and upgrade to a modern > distro, now that I seem to need an arm64 box. > > That does seem to work around the issue at least with a quick out of > > tree build, including with GCC 8. > Great news! That's really helpful. And in fact, I have discovered two > more things: > 1) The "emit_tests" target is there apparently because commit > 313a4db7f3387 ("kselftest: arm64: extend toplevel skeleton Makefile") > believed that it was necessary to skip emitting tests if not on the > right native platform. I'm tempted to delete the entire emit_tests > target in both arm64 and riscv selftests (and that also seems to work > just fine) in order to simplify things, perhaps as a follow up step. > For now I'll just post the simpler fix, though. I suspect it might've been needed at the time the patch was written but subsequent changes in the kselftest Makefile stuff have obsoleted it. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>, Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Fix arm64 test installation Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:00:32 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <8768fa96-004f-4e81-a380-a1a7784ad59c@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <04724b21-6c7c-8584-fd17-9222051dc99d@nvidia.com> [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --] On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:10:14PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 7/10/23 15:30, Mark Brown wrote: > > There is a floor on binutils version for the kselftests that's more > > aggressive than that for the kernel itself, though that looks like RHEL > > 8 which has binutils 2.30 which *should* be fine for most things - the > > MTE tests won't build but they do have version detection so should skip, > > I guess you might have trouble with PAC support which doesn't have > > detection in the tests? It's certainly old enough that I'm surprised to > > hear someone doing development for anything current with it. > This used to be a development machine, but now it is sufficiently old > that it is lightly used--that would explain how I could reserve it on > short notice for this. Maybe I'll adopt it and upgrade to a modern > distro, now that I seem to need an arm64 box. > > That does seem to work around the issue at least with a quick out of > > tree build, including with GCC 8. > Great news! That's really helpful. And in fact, I have discovered two > more things: > 1) The "emit_tests" target is there apparently because commit > 313a4db7f3387 ("kselftest: arm64: extend toplevel skeleton Makefile") > believed that it was necessary to skip emitting tests if not on the > right native platform. I'm tempted to delete the entire emit_tests > target in both arm64 and riscv selftests (and that also seems to work > just fine) in order to simplify things, perhaps as a follow up step. > For now I'll just post the simpler fix, though. I suspect it might've been needed at the time the patch was written but subsequent changes in the kselftest Makefile stuff have obsoleted it. [-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --] _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-11 14:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-07-10 14:04 [PATCH] selftests: Fix arm64 test installation Mark Brown 2023-07-10 14:04 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-10 20:22 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-10 20:22 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-10 21:20 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-10 21:20 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-10 21:31 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-10 21:31 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-10 22:30 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-10 22:30 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-10 23:10 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-10 23:10 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-11 14:00 ` Mark Brown [this message] 2023-07-11 14:00 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-13 20:02 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-13 20:02 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-13 20:16 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-13 20:16 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 17:48 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 17:48 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 18:09 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-14 18:09 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-14 18:19 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 18:19 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 18:26 ` Andrew Morton 2023-07-14 18:26 ` Andrew Morton 2023-07-14 18:32 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 18:32 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 18:36 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 18:36 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 19:11 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 19:11 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-14 19:39 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 19:39 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-14 19:39 ` John Hubbard 2023-07-18 14:54 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-18 14:54 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-18 14:56 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-18 14:56 ` Shuah Khan 2023-07-18 14:57 ` Mark Brown 2023-07-18 14:57 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=8768fa96-004f-4e81-a380-a1a7784ad59c@sirena.org.uk \ --to=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=anders.roxell@linaro.org \ --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=shuah@kernel.org \ --cc=usama.anjum@collabora.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.