Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1220625 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and powperpc

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 11:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-08 12:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 14:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2015-09-08 16:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-09 10:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and  powperpc Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2015-09-09 19:30 +0200

#1220625 — Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and powperpc

Hi, Michael

I thought I reply to you, but ...

On 08/31/2015 11:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 21:43 +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 12 ++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> index bb888c6..4dd6e4f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
>>  # Makefile for vm selftests
>>  
>> +uname_M := $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
>> +ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/)
>> +
>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc)
>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>> +endif
>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>> +endif
>> +
>>  CFLAGS = -Wall
>>  BINARIES = compaction_test
>>  BINARIES += hugepage-mmap
>> @@ -9,7 +19,9 @@ BINARIES += mlock2-tests
>>  BINARIES += on-fault-limit
>>  BINARIES += thuge-gen
>>  BINARIES += transhuge-stress
>> +ifdef support_userfaultfd
>>  BINARIES += userfaultfd
>> +endif
>>  
>>  all: $(BINARIES)
>>  %: %.c
> 
> 
> This is nasty. It means when userfaultfd gets implemented for other arches
> someone has to remember to update the logic here, which they won't.
> 
> Instead the C program should just do nothing when __NR_userfaultfd is not defined, eg:
> 
> #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> 
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> 	...
> }
> 
> #else
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> 	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test\n");
> 	return 0;
> }
> #endif
> 
> 
> This way when the syscall is implemented for other arches the test will just
> start working.
> 
> cheers
> 
>
When read the following code, It seems that sometimes __NR_userfaultfd is not
defined but the syscall is exist. I am not sure why these piece is needed.
cc'd c

#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
#ifdef __x86_64__
#define __NR_userfaultfd 323
#elif defined(__i386__)
#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
#elif defined(__powewrpc__)
#define __NR_userfaultfd 364
#else
#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
#endif
#endif

Do you mean that we should remove the above code?

regards

bamvor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220670

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 17:15 +0800, Bamvor Zhang Jian wrote:
> Hi, Michael
> 
> I thought I reply to you, but ...
> 
> On 08/31/2015 11:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 21:43 +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >> index bb888c6..4dd6e4f 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
> >>  # Makefile for vm selftests
> >>  
> >> +uname_M := $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
> >> +ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/)
> >> +
> >> +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc)
> >> +support_userfaultfd = yes
> >> +endif
> >> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
> >> +support_userfaultfd = yes
> >> +endif
> >> +
> >>  CFLAGS = -Wall
> >>  BINARIES = compaction_test
> >>  BINARIES += hugepage-mmap
> >> @@ -9,7 +19,9 @@ BINARIES += mlock2-tests
> >>  BINARIES += on-fault-limit
> >>  BINARIES += thuge-gen
> >>  BINARIES += transhuge-stress
> >> +ifdef support_userfaultfd
> >>  BINARIES += userfaultfd
> >> +endif
> >>  
> >>  all: $(BINARIES)
> >>  %: %.c
> > 
> > 
> > This is nasty. It means when userfaultfd gets implemented for other arches
> > someone has to remember to update the logic here, which they won't.
> > 
> > Instead the C program should just do nothing when __NR_userfaultfd is not defined, eg:
> > 
> > #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> > 
> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > {
> > 	...
> > }
> > 
> > #else
> > 
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > 	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test\n");
> > 	return 0;
> > }
> > #endif
> > 
> > 
> > This way when the syscall is implemented for other arches the test will just
> > start working.
> > 
> > cheers
> > 
> >
> When read the following code, It seems that sometimes __NR_userfaultfd is not
> defined but the syscall is exist. I am not sure why these piece is needed.
> cc'd c
> 
> #ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> #define __NR_userfaultfd 323
> #elif defined(__i386__)
> #define __NR_userfaultfd 374
> #elif defined(__powewrpc__)
> #define __NR_userfaultfd 364
> #else
> #error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> #endif
> #endif
> 
> Do you mean that we should remove the above code?

Well yes, it would need to be removed to make the logic I suggested work.

I'm not sure those #defines actually help in practice, because if the syscall
number is not defined then linux/userfaultfd.h will not exist and the whole
test will not compile anyway.

I was suggesting something like this, which has the properties of:
 - not breaking the build on arches that don't have the syscall
 - still printing a notice on arches that don't have the syscall, both at build
   time and runtime.
 - building correctly on an arch as soon as that arch implements the syscall,
   with no extra changes required.

cheers


diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
index 2bf1fc3f562b..652c9d805006 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -64,19 +64,10 @@
 #include <sys/syscall.h>
 #include <sys/ioctl.h>
 #include <pthread.h>
-#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
 
-#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
-#ifdef __x86_64__
-#define __NR_userfaultfd 323
-#elif defined(__i386__)
-#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
-#elif defined(__powewrpc__)
-#define __NR_userfaultfd 364
-#else
-#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
-#endif
-#endif
+#ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
+
+#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
 
 static unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size;
 
@@ -636,3 +627,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	       nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu);
 	return userfaultfd_stress();
 }
+
+#else /* ! __NR_userfaultfd */
+
+#warning "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
+
+int main(void)
+{
+	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test (missing __NR_userfaultfd)\n");
+	return 0;
+}
+
+#endif


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220738

Hi, Michael

On 09/08/2015 05:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 17:15 +0800, Bamvor Zhang Jian wrote:
>> Hi, Michael
>>
>> I thought I reply to you, but ...
>>
>> On 08/31/2015 11:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 21:43 +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>>>> index bb888c6..4dd6e4f 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
>>>>  # Makefile for vm selftests
>>>>  
>>>> +uname_M := $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
>>>> +ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/)
>>>> +
>>>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc)
>>>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>>>> +endif
>>>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>>>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>>>> +endif
>>>> +
>>>>  CFLAGS = -Wall
>>>>  BINARIES = compaction_test
>>>>  BINARIES += hugepage-mmap
>>>> @@ -9,7 +19,9 @@ BINARIES += mlock2-tests
>>>>  BINARIES += on-fault-limit
>>>>  BINARIES += thuge-gen
>>>>  BINARIES += transhuge-stress
>>>> +ifdef support_userfaultfd
>>>>  BINARIES += userfaultfd
>>>> +endif
>>>>  
>>>>  all: $(BINARIES)
>>>>  %: %.c
>>>
>>>
>>> This is nasty. It means when userfaultfd gets implemented for other arches
>>> someone has to remember to update the logic here, which they won't.
>>>
>>> Instead the C program should just do nothing when __NR_userfaultfd is not defined, eg:
>>>
>>> #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
>>>
>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> {
>>> 	...
>>> }
>>>
>>> #else
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> 	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test\n");
>>> 	return 0;
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>>
>>> This way when the syscall is implemented for other arches the test will just
>>> start working.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>>
>> When read the following code, It seems that sometimes __NR_userfaultfd is not
>> defined but the syscall is exist. I am not sure why these piece is needed.
>> cc'd c
>>
>> #ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
>> #ifdef __x86_64__
>> #define __NR_userfaultfd 323
>> #elif defined(__i386__)
>> #define __NR_userfaultfd 374
>> #elif defined(__powewrpc__)
>> #define __NR_userfaultfd 364
>> #else
>> #error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
>> #endif
>> #endif
>>
>> Do you mean that we should remove the above code?
> 
> Well yes, it would need to be removed to make the logic I suggested work.
> 
> I'm not sure those #defines actually help in practice, because if the syscall
> number is not defined then linux/userfaultfd.h will not exist and the whole
> test will not compile anyway.
> 
> I was suggesting something like this, which has the properties of:
>  - not breaking the build on arches that don't have the syscall
>  - still printing a notice on arches that don't have the syscall, both at build
>    time and runtime.
>  - building correctly on an arch as soon as that arch implements the syscall,
>    with no extra changes required.
Ok, I agree with you. I will send the updated patch later.
> cheers
> 
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> index 2bf1fc3f562b..652c9d805006 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -64,19 +64,10 @@
>  #include <sys/syscall.h>
>  #include <sys/ioctl.h>
>  #include <pthread.h>
> -#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
>  
> -#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
> -#ifdef __x86_64__
> -#define __NR_userfaultfd 323
> -#elif defined(__i386__)
> -#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
> -#elif defined(__powewrpc__)
> -#define __NR_userfaultfd 364
> -#else
> -#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> -#endif
> -#endif
> +#ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> +
> +#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
>  
>  static unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size;
>  
> @@ -636,3 +627,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	       nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu);
>  	return userfaultfd_stress();
>  }
> +
> +#else /* ! __NR_userfaultfd */
> +
> +#warning "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test (missing __NR_userfaultfd)\n");
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#endif
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220880

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 08:25:45PM +0800, Bamvor Zhang Jian wrote:
> Hi, Michael
> 
> On 09/08/2015 05:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 17:15 +0800, Bamvor Zhang Jian wrote:
> >> Hi, Michael
> >>
> >> I thought I reply to you, but ...
> >>
> >> On 08/31/2015 11:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 21:43 +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >>>> index bb888c6..4dd6e4f 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> >>>> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
> >>>>  # Makefile for vm selftests
> >>>>  
> >>>> +uname_M := $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
> >>>> +ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/)
> >>>> +
> >>>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc)
> >>>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
> >>>> +endif
> >>>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
> >>>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
> >>>> +endif
> >>>> +
> >>>>  CFLAGS = -Wall
> >>>>  BINARIES = compaction_test
> >>>>  BINARIES += hugepage-mmap
> >>>> @@ -9,7 +19,9 @@ BINARIES += mlock2-tests
> >>>>  BINARIES += on-fault-limit
> >>>>  BINARIES += thuge-gen
> >>>>  BINARIES += transhuge-stress
> >>>> +ifdef support_userfaultfd
> >>>>  BINARIES += userfaultfd
> >>>> +endif
> >>>>  
> >>>>  all: $(BINARIES)
> >>>>  %: %.c
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is nasty. It means when userfaultfd gets implemented for other arches
> >>> someone has to remember to update the logic here, which they won't.
> >>>
> >>> Instead the C program should just do nothing when __NR_userfaultfd is not defined, eg:
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> >>>
> >>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >>> {
> >>> 	...
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> #else
> >>>
> >>> int main(void)
> >>> {
> >>> 	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test\n");
> >>> 	return 0;
> >>> }
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This way when the syscall is implemented for other arches the test will just
> >>> start working.
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>>
> >>>
> >> When read the following code, It seems that sometimes __NR_userfaultfd is not
> >> defined but the syscall is exist. I am not sure why these piece is needed.
> >> cc'd c
> >>
> >> #ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
> >> #ifdef __x86_64__
> >> #define __NR_userfaultfd 323
> >> #elif defined(__i386__)
> >> #define __NR_userfaultfd 374
> >> #elif defined(__powewrpc__)
> >> #define __NR_userfaultfd 364
> >> #else
> >> #error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> >> #endif
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> Do you mean that we should remove the above code?
> > 
> > Well yes, it would need to be removed to make the logic I suggested work.
> > 
> > I'm not sure those #defines actually help in practice, because if the syscall
> > number is not defined then linux/userfaultfd.h will not exist and the whole
> > test will not compile anyway.
> > 
> > I was suggesting something like this, which has the properties of:
> >  - not breaking the build on arches that don't have the syscall
> >  - still printing a notice on arches that don't have the syscall, both at build
> >    time and runtime.
> >  - building correctly on an arch as soon as that arch implements the syscall,
> >    with no extra changes required.
> Ok, I agree with you. I will send the updated patch later.

I already had a few minor changes queued to be submitted for arm and
ppc and a few updates to the selftest.

I didn't like that you had to remember running make headers_install
for changes like the below one to build, so I added the dependency so
that "make" still works without having to run other commands before
it. These aren't reviewed yet.

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=5ce2efeb91b501aa1bc7370f43732681fa9123e2

I was planning to send these non-x86 updates to Andrew for review and
merging...

Isn't this necessary as well?

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=0eb943b76537a93fc4dd85cc0cbf937ce8266228

I can include the below one too, but we need to coordinate to submit
them or eventually some will reject.


> > cheers
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> > index 2bf1fc3f562b..652c9d805006 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -64,19 +64,10 @@
> >  #include <sys/syscall.h>
> >  #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> >  #include <pthread.h>
> > -#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
> >  
> > -#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
> > -#ifdef __x86_64__
> > -#define __NR_userfaultfd 323
> > -#elif defined(__i386__)
> > -#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
> > -#elif defined(__powewrpc__)
> > -#define __NR_userfaultfd 364
> > -#else
> > -#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> > -#endif
> > -#endif
> > +#ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> > +
> > +#include <linux/userfaultfd.h>
> >  
> >  static unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size;
> >  
> > @@ -636,3 +627,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >  	       nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu);
> >  	return userfaultfd_stress();
> >  }
> > +
> > +#else /* ! __NR_userfaultfd */
> > +
> > +#warning "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
> > +
> > +int main(void)
> > +{
> > +	printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test (missing __NR_userfaultfd)\n");
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif
> > 
> > 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221305

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 16:34 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> I already had a few minor changes queued to be submitted for arm and
> ppc and a few updates to the selftest.
> 
> I didn't like that you had to remember running make headers_install
> for changes like the below one to build, so I added the dependency so
> that "make" still works without having to run other commands before
> it. These aren't reviewed yet.
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=5ce2efeb91b501aa1bc7370f43732681fa9123e2

That's, how should I put it, fairly gross :)

I'd really rather you didn't do that. It's really not that hard to run make
headers_install once manually is it?

> I was planning to send these non-x86 updates to Andrew for review and
> merging...

Fine by me, that's probably the best way to get them in.

> Isn't this necessary as well?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=0eb943b76537a93fc4dd85cc0cbf937ce8266228

Yes, I think I acked that earlier today.

> I can include the below one too, but we need to coordinate to submit
> them or eventually some will reject.

I think given you already have a series you should pick this up as part of
that series. It will need to be reworked slightly anyway to go on top of your
series I think.

cheers


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221580

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:43:11PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 16:34 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > 
> > I already had a few minor changes queued to be submitted for arm and
> > ppc and a few updates to the selftest.
> > 
> > I didn't like that you had to remember running make headers_install
> > for changes like the below one to build, so I added the dependency so
> > that "make" still works without having to run other commands before
> > it. These aren't reviewed yet.
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=5ce2efeb91b501aa1bc7370f43732681fa9123e2
> 
> That's, how should I put it, fairly gross :)
> 
> I'd really rather you didn't do that. It's really not that hard to run make
> headers_install once manually is it?

I agree it's fairly gross, but I don't like when "make" fails and you
need to know something non-standard from documentation to make it work
(ehm documentation? I don't think there is any about how to build the
selftest).

This is self documenting change (that works better than actual
documentation) and you're free to run "make headers_install" by hand
if you prefer after a git clean -d -x -f and you won't know the
difference.

If there's a cleaner solution that's fine, but I don't like to
fallback in having to run "make headers_install" by hand :).

> I think given you already have a series you should pick this up as part of
> that series. It will need to be reworked slightly anyway to go on top of your
> series I think.

Yep I reworked and integrated it.

Thanks!
Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web