From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>,
George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:37:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78eec55c-ac2c-467e-0a2c-9acb44eba850@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <68c93553-7db5-f43b-b3cd-b9112a8a57dc@citrix.com>
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.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-22 14:03 Stable ABI checking (take 2) Andrew Cooper
2021-02-22 14:37 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-02-22 16:00 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-02-22 16:25 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-22 17:21 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-22 18:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-02-22 18:25 ` Ian Jackson
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=78eec55c-ac2c-467e-0a2c-9acb44eba850@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).