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=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 5BB4BC433E6 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6D564E61 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0C6D564E61 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.88256.165800 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEE1X-00074l-Kq; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:27 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 88256.165800; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEE1X-00074e-Ht; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:27 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 88256; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:26 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEE1W-00074Z-IQ for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:26 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id df841af0-1fb3-48df-83cd-a605bcd6ee26; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EB0AC69; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:25:24 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: df841af0-1fb3-48df-83cd-a605bcd6ee26 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1614011124; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=osJvbx1L06taSNZkiSDQJ0xWcSCB+zp9cpcXFxUyEMo=; b=bJ+Gi09CWniYmaYBkYCSiHjbmE/zF8iPt9XwDLMwipvAzcmB7sbva4Dilg0/qY6NAacs39 8uwrZiKO7ZpLeLIRcbWgsGBH6igBwVqH8DM7LFkZ7HWRFG7ItjQd19tzaQ9/KDayPFQ1Tu C3yJYd2Mn7kXIs5cnk7/MyiHM47vfnY= Subject: Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2) To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Ian Jackson , George Dunlap , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Juergen Gross , Xen-devel References: <68c93553-7db5-f43b-b3cd-b9112a8a57dc@citrix.com> <78eec55c-ac2c-467e-0a2c-9acb44eba850@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <5a38fe0a-0aee-f3f3-f9ea-43300499c350@suse.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:25:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 22.02.2021 17:00, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/02/2021 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the >>> appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available. >>> >>> We now have to possible courses of action for ABI checking in builds. >>> >>> 1) Publish the ABI descriptions on xenbits, update all downstream test >>> systems to invoke abi-compliance-checker manually. >>> >>> 2) Commit/update the ABI descriptions when RELEASE-$X.$Y.0 is tagged, >>> update the main build to use abi-compliance-checker when available. >>> >>> >>> Pros/Cons: >>> >>> The ABI descriptions claim to be sensitive to toolchain in use.  I don't >>> know how true this is in practice. >>> >>> Publishing on xenbits involves obtaining even more misc artefacts during >>> the build, which is going to be firm -2 from downstreams. >>> >>> Committing the ABI descriptions lets abi checking work in developer >>> builds (with suitable tools installed).  It also means we get checking >>> "for free" in Gitlab CI and OSSTest without custom logic. >>> >>> >>> Thoughts on which approach is better?  I'm leaning in favour of option 2 >>> because it allows for consumption by developers and test systems. >> +1 for option 2, fwiw. >> >>> If we do go with route 2, I was thinking of adding a `make check` >>> hierarchy.  Longer term, this can be used to queue up other unit tests >>> which can be run from within the build tree. >> Is there a reason the normal build process can't be made fail in >> case verification fails? Besides "make check" typically meaning to >> invoke a functional testsuite rather than (just) some compatibility >> checking, I'd also be worried of no-one (likely including me) to >> remember to separately run "make check" at appropriate times. > > As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is important, as %build > and %check are explicitly separate steps.  I have no idea what the deb > policy/organisation is here. > > Merging some of check into build would be a layering violation, and even > if we did so, where do you draw the line? Well, building a shared object that won't load is as bad as building a shared object that won't work because of violating expected guarantees. The closest similarity I can think of right away would be the linker error you ought to get when a to-be-exported symbol can't be resolved. The line imo would be drawn between things detectable at build time vs those only detectable by actually using the generated binaries. Jan