[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221021172026.GC8420@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:20:26 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add 7 tests for memcmp()
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:07:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I see. In the worst case, a preliminary "make clean" will do it. We just
> > need to decide what's the best solution for everyone (i.e. not waste too
> > much time between tests while not getting misleading results by accident).
>
> Maybe just document the careful/slow way, then people doing it more
> frequently can do it the clever/fast way.
>
> My guess is that the careful/slow is this:
>
> pushd tools/include/nolibc
> make clean
> make
> popd
> pushd tools/testing/selftests/nolibc
> make clean
> make -j32 run
>
> Or did I miss a turn in there somewhere?
It's even easier, you don't even need the clean phase in include/nolibc.
I'm doing this and it's sufficient:
make -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc clean
make -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc nolibc-test
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test
Or for the test under QEMU, which involves a kernel build:
make -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc clean
make -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc -j $(nproc) run
Where would you first look for such a hint ? Maybe the help output of
the default "make" command could send as a hint that a clean is needed
after patching nolibc and that could be sufficient ? I just want to make
sure users don't waste their time trying to find what they could be doing
wrong.
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists