From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Bligh Subject: Re: [Autotest] [PATCH] Monotonic time test: Don't force static compilation of time_test Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:37 -0700 Message-ID: <33307c791003231415l74844bddi39a52438359b4467@mail.gmail.com> References: <1269368002-12652-1-git-send-email-lmr@redhat.com> <33307c791003231125s770c8034t2859fde10c10cf5f@mail.gmail.com> <6ac58f4f1003231356v7abdeb93v2810e56cb3877749@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, Michael Davidson , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:42199 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175Ab0CWVPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:42 -0400 Received: from wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o2NLFelm030131 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:41 -0700 Received: from vws13 (vws13.prod.google.com [10.241.21.141]) by wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o2NLFcAm027210 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:40 -0700 Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so513146vws.8 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6ac58f4f1003231356v7abdeb93v2810e56cb3877749@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Martin Bligh wrote: >> +cc:md (he wrote the test). >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues >> wrote: >>> The Makefile for the monotonic_test C program forces static >>> compilation of the object files. Since we are compiling the >>> code already, not having a static binary doesn't make much >>> of a difference on the systems we are running this test. >>> >>> As the static compilation might fail in some boxes, just remove >>> this constraint from the Makefile. >> >> I presume this was to fix some Google interdependency. >> Is it actually breaking something? If not, seems safer to leave it? >> If so, we'll have to fix one end or the other ;-) > > Yes, I can't get a static build on a Fedora 13 box by no means, that's > why I looked into what was going wrong and cooked this patch. If > someone has any suggestions of what I need to do to work around this, > let me know. OK, sounds like Michael is happy - and there's a real problem to fix. LGTM - go ahead and apply it. Thanks, M.