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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1528952 > unrolled thread

linker-tables v5 testing

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linker-tables v5 testing "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-11-24 05:20 +0100
    Re: linker-tables v5 testing Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-11-24 06:00 +0100
    Re: linker-tables v5 testing Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-11-24 17:20 +0100

#1528952 — linker-tables v5 testing

Guenter,

I think I'm ready to start pushing a new patch set out for review.
Before I do that -- can I trouble you for letting your test
infrastructure hammer it? I'll only push out the patches for review
based on this new set of changes once all tests come back OK for all
architectures.

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20161117-linker-tables-v5

Fenguang & Guenter,

Any chance I can trouble you to enable the new driver:
CONFIG_TEST_LINKTABLES=y on each kernel configuration as it will run a
test driver which will WARN_ON() if it finds any errors.

If these warns are captured by your logs then we will see run time use
issues of using this on any architecture for *all* the sections for
linker tables. I had not bothered yet adding a test driver for section
ranges given I already tested
./tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest script and confirm things
are still a go.

To the rest on Cc:

Other than a few documentation improvements I think this is now
done... Of course there may be more bike-shedding or few minor
adjustments I may have missed -- Nickolas (or others), please do poke
me with any last minute blockers you see before I push out a new patch
set. I figure there may be some time before the tests are over and I
could probably adjust the series to account for minor things that are
eye-sores before requiring a full new submission.

Also I have a draft edit of a paper on this (hasn't been adjusted to
account for the new API changes yet), if you're in the US and you want
to be anti-social and read something during turkey day perhaps that
might help.

http://drvbp1.linux-foundation.org/~mcgrof/papers/2016/11/21/linker-tables-20161121.pdf

Oh and tools folks:

cd tools/linker-tables/
make clean
make
./demo

  Luis

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528978

On 11/23/2016 08:11 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> I think I'm ready to start pushing a new patch set out for review.
> Before I do that -- can I trouble you for letting your test
> infrastructure hammer it? I'll only push out the patches for review

Pushed into my testing branch

> based on this new set of changes once all tests come back OK for all
> architectures.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20161117-linker-tables-v5
>
> Fenguang & Guenter,
>
> Any chance I can trouble you to enable the new driver:
> CONFIG_TEST_LINKTABLES=y on each kernel configuration as it will run a
> test driver which will WARN_ON() if it finds any errors.
>
I added this to all defconfigs in the testing branch. That doesn't test
all configurations, but at least those which use a standard defconfig
as base, which by now is most of them.

Guenter

> If these warns are captured by your logs then we will see run time use
> issues of using this on any architecture for *all* the sections for
> linker tables. I had not bothered yet adding a test driver for section
> ranges given I already tested
> ./tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest script and confirm things
> are still a go.
>
> To the rest on Cc:
>
> Other than a few documentation improvements I think this is now
> done... Of course there may be more bike-shedding or few minor
> adjustments I may have missed -- Nickolas (or others), please do poke
> me with any last minute blockers you see before I push out a new patch
> set. I figure there may be some time before the tests are over and I
> could probably adjust the series to account for minor things that are
> eye-sores before requiring a full new submission.
>
> Also I have a draft edit of a paper on this (hasn't been adjusted to
> account for the new API changes yet), if you're in the US and you want
> to be anti-social and read something during turkey day perhaps that
> might help.
>
> http://drvbp1.linux-foundation.org/~mcgrof/papers/2016/11/21/linker-tables-20161121.pdf
>
> Oh and tools folks:
>
> cd tools/linker-tables/
> make clean
> make
> ./demo
>
>   Luis
>

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

#1529535

Hi Luis,

On 11/23/2016 08:11 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> I think I'm ready to start pushing a new patch set out for review.
> Before I do that -- can I trouble you for letting your test
> infrastructure hammer it? I'll only push out the patches for review
> based on this new set of changes once all tests come back OK for all
> architectures.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20161117-linker-tables-v5
>
> Fenguang & Guenter,
>
> Any chance I can trouble you to enable the new driver:
> CONFIG_TEST_LINKTABLES=y on each kernel configuration as it will run a
> test driver which will WARN_ON() if it finds any errors.
>

I see a number of compile failures as well as some crashes in your test driver.
Please have a look. http://kerneltests.org/builders, column 'testing'.

Thanks,
Guenter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web