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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36492C433E0 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1270620659 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726084AbgFEI7y (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 04:59:54 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:29722 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726062AbgFEI7y (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 04:59:54 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,475,1583164800"; d="scan'208";a="93898783" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2020 16:59:50 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXMBPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.201]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5F94BCC8AC; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:59:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.220.84] (10.167.220.84) by G08CNEXMBPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:59:46 +0800 Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01 From: Yang Xu To: Martijn Coenen , Naresh Kamboju CC: Jens Axboe , Arnd Bergmann , Viresh Kumar , open list , Richard Palethorpe , linux-block , , Christoph Hellwig , LTP List References: Message-ID: <14be1119-50a7-3861-dfd4-42a239413ee7@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:59:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.220.84] X-ClientProxiedBy: G08CNEXCHPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.200) To G08CNEXMBPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.201) X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 4E5F94BCC8AC.A464F X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hi Martijn Sorry for noise. I see your patch in here[1] . I will modify ioctl_loop01 to test that LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN can not clear and LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR can be clear. ps: Giving the url of patch is better so that other people doesn't need to investigate it again. [1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11588321/ Best Regards Yang Xu > Hi Martijn > >> Hi Naresh, >> >> I just sent a patch and cc'd you. I verified all the loop tests pass >> again with that patch. > I think you want to say "without".  I verified the ioctl_loop01 fails > with faf1d25440 ("loop: Clean up LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling"). > > This kernel commit breaks old behaviour(if old flag all 0, new flag is > always 0 regradless your flag setting). > > I think we should modify code as below: > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c > index 13518ba191f5..c6ba8cf486ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c > @@ -1364,11 +1364,9 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const > struct loop_info64 *info) >         if (err) >                 goto out_unfreeze; > > -       /* Mask out flags that can't be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */ > -       lo->lo_flags &= ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > -       /* For those flags, use the previous values instead */ > -       lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags & ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > -       /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values too */ > +       /* Mask out flags that can be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */ > +       lo->lo_flags &= LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > +       /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values. */ >         lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags &~LOOP_SET_STATUS_CLEARABLE_FLAGS; > > Best Regards > Yang Xu >> >> Thanks, >> Martijn >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:10 PM Martijn Coenen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Naresh, >>> >>> I suspect the loop failures are due to >>> faf1d25440d6ad06d509dada4b6fe62fea844370 ("loop: Clean up >>> LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling"), I will investigate and get back >>> to you. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Martijn >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:19 PM Naresh Kamboju >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> + linux-block@vger.kernel.org >>>> >>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 22:47, Naresh Kamboju >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Following three test cases reported as regression on Linux mainline >>>>> kernel >>>>> on x86_64, arm64, arm and i386 >>>>> >>>>>    ltp-syscalls-tests: >>>>>      * ioctl_loop01 >>>>>      * mknod07 >>>>>      * setns01 >>>>> >>>>> git repo: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >>>>> git branch: master >>>>> GOOD: >>>>>    git commit: b23c4771ff62de8ca9b5e4a2d64491b2fb6f8f69 >>>>>    git describe: v5.7-1230-gb23c4771ff62 >>>>> BAD: >>>>>    git commit: 1ee08de1e234d95b5b4f866878b72fceb5372904 >>>>>    git describe: v5.7-3523-g1ee08de1e234 >>>>> >>>>> kernel-config: >>>>> https://builds.tuxbuild.com/U3bU0dMA62OVHb4DvZIVuw/kernel.config >>>>> >>>>> We are investigating these failures. >>>>> >>>>> tst_test.c:906: CONF: btrfs driver not available >>>>> tst_test.c:1246: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 15m 00s >>>>> tst_device.c:88: INFO: Found free device 1 '/dev/loop1' >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:49: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan = 0 >>>>> [ 1073.639677] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages >>>>> (nrpages=1) >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:50: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear = 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:51: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/backing_file = >>>>> '/scratch/ltp-mnIdulzriQ/9cPtLQ/test.img' >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:63: FAIL: expect 12 but got 17 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:67: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan != 1 got 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:68: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear != 1 got 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:79: FAIL: access /dev/loop1p1 fails >>>>> [ 1073.679678] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages >>>>> (nrpages=1) >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:85: FAIL: access /sys/block/loop1/loop1p1 fails >>>>> >>>>> HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fixes, see: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=10c70d95c0f2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018) >>>>> [ 1264.711379] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounting ext2 file system using the >>>>> ext4 subsystem >>>>> [ 1264.716642] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounted filesystem without journal. >>>>> Opts: (null) >>>>> mknod07     0  TINFO  :  Using test device LTP_DEV='/dev/loop0' >>>>> mknod07     0  TINFO  :  Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext2 opts='' >>>>> extra opts='' >>>>> mknod07     1  TPASS  :  mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied >>>>> mknod07     2  TPASS  :  mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied >>>>> mknod07     3  TFAIL  :  mknod07.c:155: mknod succeeded unexpectedly >>>>> mknod07     4  TPASS  :  mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted >>>>> mknod07     5  TPASS  :  mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EROFS(30): Read-only file system >>>>> mknod07     6  TPASS  :  mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=ELOOP(40): Too many levels of symbolic links >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  ns_name=ipc, ns_fds[0]=6, >>>>> ns_types[0]=0x8000000 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  ns_name=mnt, ns_fds[1]=7, ns_types[1]=0x20000 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  ns_name=net, ns_fds[2]=8, >>>>> ns_types[2]=0x40000000 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  ns_name=pid, ns_fds[3]=9, >>>>> ns_types[3]=0x20000000 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  ns_name=uts, ns_fds[4]=10, >>>>> ns_types[4]=0x4000000 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(-1, 0x8000000) >>>>> setns01     1  TPASS  :  invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(-1, 0x20000) >>>>> setns01     2  TPASS  :  invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(-1, 0x40000000) >>>>> setns01     3  TPASS  :  invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(-1, 0x20000000) >>>>> setns01     4  TPASS  :  invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(-1, 0x4000000) >>>>> setns01     5  TPASS  :  invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(11, 0x8000000) >>>>> setns01     6  TFAIL  :  setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(11, 0x20000) >>>>> setns01     7  TFAIL  :  setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(11, 0x40000000) >>>>> setns01     8  TFAIL  :  setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(11, 0x20000000) >>>>> setns01     9  TFAIL  :  setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01     0  TINFO  :  setns(11, 0x4000000) >>>>> setns01    10  TFAIL  :  setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> >>>>> Full test log link, >>>>> https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1467931#L8047 >>>>> >>>>> test results comparison shows this test case started failing from >>>>> June-2-2020 >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/ioctl_loop01/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/setns01/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/mknod07/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Linaro LKFT >>>>> https://lkft.linaro.org >> >> > > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Xu Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:59:37 +0800 Subject: [LTP] LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14be1119-50a7-3861-dfd4-42a239413ee7@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Martijn Sorry for noise. I see your patch in here[1] . I will modify ioctl_loop01 to test that LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN can not clear and LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR can be clear. ps: Giving the url of patch is better so that other people doesn't need to investigate it again. [1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11588321/ Best Regards Yang Xu > Hi Martijn > >> Hi Naresh, >> >> I just sent a patch and cc'd you. I verified all the loop tests pass >> again with that patch. > I think you want to say "without".? I verified the ioctl_loop01 fails > with faf1d25440 ("loop: Clean up LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling"). > > This kernel commit breaks old behaviour(if old flag all 0, new flag is > always 0 regradless your flag setting). > > I think we should modify code as below: > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c > index 13518ba191f5..c6ba8cf486ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c > @@ -1364,11 +1364,9 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const > struct loop_info64 *info) > ??????? if (err) > ??????????????? goto out_unfreeze; > > -?????? /* Mask out flags that can't be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */ > -?????? lo->lo_flags &= ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > -?????? /* For those flags, use the previous values instead */ > -?????? lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags & ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > -?????? /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values too */ > +?????? /* Mask out flags that can be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */ > +?????? lo->lo_flags &= LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS; > +?????? /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values. */ > ??????? lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags &~LOOP_SET_STATUS_CLEARABLE_FLAGS; > > Best Regards > Yang Xu >> >> Thanks, >> Martijn >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:10 PM Martijn Coenen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Naresh, >>> >>> I suspect the loop failures are due to >>> faf1d25440d6ad06d509dada4b6fe62fea844370 ("loop: Clean up >>> LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling"), I will investigate and get back >>> to you. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Martijn >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:19 PM Naresh Kamboju >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> + linux-block@vger.kernel.org >>>> >>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 22:47, Naresh Kamboju >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Following three test cases reported as regression on Linux mainline >>>>> kernel >>>>> on x86_64, arm64, arm and i386 >>>>> >>>>> ?? ltp-syscalls-tests: >>>>> ???? * ioctl_loop01 >>>>> ???? * mknod07 >>>>> ???? * setns01 >>>>> >>>>> git repo: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >>>>> git branch: master >>>>> GOOD: >>>>> ?? git commit: b23c4771ff62de8ca9b5e4a2d64491b2fb6f8f69 >>>>> ?? git describe: v5.7-1230-gb23c4771ff62 >>>>> BAD: >>>>> ?? git commit: 1ee08de1e234d95b5b4f866878b72fceb5372904 >>>>> ?? git describe: v5.7-3523-g1ee08de1e234 >>>>> >>>>> kernel-config: >>>>> https://builds.tuxbuild.com/U3bU0dMA62OVHb4DvZIVuw/kernel.config >>>>> >>>>> We are investigating these failures. >>>>> >>>>> tst_test.c:906: CONF: btrfs driver not available >>>>> tst_test.c:1246: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 15m 00s >>>>> tst_device.c:88: INFO: Found free device 1 '/dev/loop1' >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:49: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan = 0 >>>>> [ 1073.639677] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages >>>>> (nrpages=1) >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:50: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear = 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:51: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/backing_file = >>>>> '/scratch/ltp-mnIdulzriQ/9cPtLQ/test.img' >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:63: FAIL: expect 12 but got 17 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:67: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan != 1 got 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:68: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear != 1 got 0 >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:79: FAIL: access /dev/loop1p1 fails >>>>> [ 1073.679678] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages >>>>> (nrpages=1) >>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:85: FAIL: access /sys/block/loop1/loop1p1 fails >>>>> >>>>> HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fixes, see: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=10c70d95c0f2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018) >>>>> [ 1264.711379] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounting ext2 file system using the >>>>> ext4 subsystem >>>>> [ 1264.716642] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounted filesystem without journal. >>>>> Opts: (null) >>>>> mknod07???? 0? TINFO? :? Using test device LTP_DEV='/dev/loop0' >>>>> mknod07???? 0? TINFO? :? Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext2 opts='' >>>>> extra opts='' >>>>> mknod07???? 1? TPASS? :? mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied >>>>> mknod07???? 2? TPASS? :? mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied >>>>> mknod07???? 3? TFAIL? :? mknod07.c:155: mknod succeeded unexpectedly >>>>> mknod07???? 4? TPASS? :? mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted >>>>> mknod07???? 5? TPASS? :? mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EROFS(30): Read-only file system >>>>> mknod07???? 6? TPASS? :? mknod failed as expected: >>>>> TEST_ERRNO=ELOOP(40): Too many levels of symbolic links >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? ns_name=ipc, ns_fds[0]=6, >>>>> ns_types[0]=0x8000000 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? ns_name=mnt, ns_fds[1]=7, ns_types[1]=0x20000 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? ns_name=net, ns_fds[2]=8, >>>>> ns_types[2]=0x40000000 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? ns_name=pid, ns_fds[3]=9, >>>>> ns_types[3]=0x20000000 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? ns_name=uts, ns_fds[4]=10, >>>>> ns_types[4]=0x4000000 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(-1, 0x8000000) >>>>> setns01???? 1? TPASS? :? invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(-1, 0x20000) >>>>> setns01???? 2? TPASS? :? invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(-1, 0x40000000) >>>>> setns01???? 3? TPASS? :? invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(-1, 0x20000000) >>>>> setns01???? 4? TPASS? :? invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(-1, 0x4000000) >>>>> setns01???? 5? TPASS? :? invalid fd exp_errno=9 >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(11, 0x8000000) >>>>> setns01???? 6? TFAIL? :? setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(11, 0x20000) >>>>> setns01???? 7? TFAIL? :? setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(11, 0x40000000) >>>>> setns01???? 8? TFAIL? :? setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(11, 0x20000000) >>>>> setns01???? 9? TFAIL? :? setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> setns01???? 0? TINFO? :? setns(11, 0x4000000) >>>>> setns01??? 10? TFAIL? :? setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22: >>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor >>>>> >>>>> Full test log link, >>>>> https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1467931#L8047 >>>>> >>>>> test results comparison shows this test case started failing from >>>>> June-2-2020 >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/ioctl_loop01/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/setns01/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/mknod07/history/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Linaro LKFT >>>>> https://lkft.linaro.org >> >> > > >