[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5494ac68-b4b9-434f-92c1-7e197c92a4ab@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2023 15:57:54 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>, thomas@...ch.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nolibc patches, still possible for 6.5 ?
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:20:11PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> Thomas and Zhangjin have provided significant nolibc cleanups, and
> fixes, as well as preparation work to later support riscv32.
>
> These consist in the following main series:
> - generalization of stackprotector to other archs that were not
> previously supported (riscv, mips, loongarch, arm, arm64)
>
> - general cleanups of the makefile, test report output, deduplication
> of certain tests
>
> - slightly better compliance of some tests performed on certain syscalls
> (e.g. no longer pass (void*)1 to gettimeofday() since glibc hates it).
>
> - add support for nanoseconds in stat() and statx()
>
> - fixes for some syscalls (e.g. ppoll() has 5 arguments not 4)
>
> - fixes around limits.h and INT_MAX / INT_FAST64_MAX
>
> I rebased the whole series on top of your latest dev branch (d19a9ca3d5)
> and it works fine for all archs.
>
> I don't know if you're still planning on merging new stuff in this area
> for 6.5 or not (since I know that it involves new series of tests on your
> side as well), but given that Zhangjin will engage into deeper changes
> later for riscv32 that will likely imply to update more syscalls to use
> the time64 ones, I would prefer to split the cleanups from the hard stuff,
> but I'll let you judge based on the current state of what's pending for
> 6.5.
>
> In any case I'm putting all this here for now (not for merge yet):
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git 20230604-nolibc-rv32+stkp6
>
> I'd like Thomas and Zhangjin to perform a last check to confirm they're
> OK with this final integration.
Given that the testing converges by the end of this week, I can't see
any reason why these cannot make v6.5. (There were some kernel test
robot complaints as well, valid or not I am not sure.)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists