| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <561F5189.3070809@osg.samsung.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:11:05 +0200 From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@....samsung.com> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Allow drivers to build if COMPILE_TEST is enabled Hello Krzysztof, On 10/15/2015 04:04 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 2015-10-15 4:08 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>: >> Hello Stephen, >> >> On 10/14/2015 08:38 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> On 10/13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/versatile/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/versatile/Kconfig >>>> index 1530c9352a76..fc50b6264bed 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/clk/versatile/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/versatile/Kconfig >>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>>> config COMMON_CLK_VERSATILE >>>> bool "Clock driver for ARM Reference designs" >>>> - depends on ARCH_INTEGRATOR || ARCH_REALVIEW || ARCH_VEXPRESS || ARM64 >>>> + depends on ARCH_INTEGRATOR || ARCH_REALVIEW || ARCH_VEXPRESS || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST >>> >>> Have you compiled these drivers on an architecture that doesn't >>> have IOMEM? Perhaps tile or um? I'm all for more build coverage, >>> but it's not always as simple as just sprinkling some >>> COMPILE_TEST around the Kconfigs. >>> >> >> No, I only build tested on arm32 and x86. The 0-day bot haven't reported a >> build error yet and I didn't see any platform dependent code in the drivers. > > I see you guys with Luis are adding a lot of COMPILE_TEST. But Yes, the motivation for this was that I've been helping Mauro with a big rework in the media subsystem [0] and was annoying to audit that all the drivers were converted to the new APIs and no compile regressions were introduced in drivers that could not be built with COMPILE_TEST enabled. Most media drivers are able to be build though so I thought it would be a good idea to extend the build coverage in all the other subsystems. > building only on these two architectures *is not enough*. Run at least > armv8, PPC and the x86_64. MIPS would be nice as well (I use the > CodeSourcery's MIPS). All of these (ARM64, X86_64, PPC, MIPS) can be > easily installed on typical debian-like Linux distro. Really easily. > Thanks, Stephen also pointed out to the toolchains in kernel.org [1]. > By adding this non-tested build coverage you can actually fail some > other architecture's allyesconfig/allmodconfig builds. > Agreed, unfortunately having more build coverage is not as trivial as I originally thought. Not only because it can break the build in obscure archs that I don't have a toolchain to test but also exposes more build warnings (as reported by the 0-day bot) that I've the bandwidth to fix. So personally I'll stop trying to enabled COMPILE_TEST just to be safe. > Best regards, > Krzysztof > [0]: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-August/367109.html [1]: https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists