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 D0032C433DB for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:37 +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 882FC64DE9 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 882FC64DE9 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.88126.165598 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lECL1-0002qt-9n; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:27 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 88126.165598; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lECL1-0002qm-4o; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:27 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 88126; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:26 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lECL0-0002pk-4g for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:26 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 7d287ab9-0d28-45a1-ba7d-daf0d830c199; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BD4ACBF; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:37:24 +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: 7d287ab9-0d28-45a1-ba7d-daf0d830c199 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=1614004644; 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=tCWkG02dPXSfkiAcHJic0pFvK1DmDmjDroIUFKTrOuc=; b=NWxEDaohl7i3l77dmFQrWAGlMNQ6FhUYr1Z8jvC+EI1Gul8MsNKrpzwGzuAyvLbjpk8neG IhUOB3YR5Ra8wzowBoAYKPqrrC8F4ltSEjiig02/vO8XSNvKF6OIUVseErSPzNcc35BaGE OeU80FmIfj4bbsnA2cCAz/cLT1mql+g= 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> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <78eec55c-ac2c-467e-0a2c-9acb44eba850@suse.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:37:23 +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: <68c93553-7db5-f43b-b3cd-b9112a8a57dc@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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