On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 12:45 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:20 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues in my -next testing > > > > with this patch applied but I only build architectures that build with > > > > LLVM due to the nature of my work. If exposure to more architectures is > > > > desirable, perhaps Guenter Roeck would not mind testing it with his > > > > matrix? > > > > > > Thanks Nathan. > > > > > > I think the additional testing would be great, KP can you please work > > > with Guenter to set this up? > > > > Adding Guenter directly to this thread. > > > Is that something you can do KP? I'm asking because I'm looking at > > merging some other patches into lsm/dev and I need to make a decision > > about the static call patches (hold off on merging the other patches > > until the static call testing is complete, or yank the static call > > patches until testing is complete and then re-merge). Understanding > > your ability to do the additional testing, and a rough idea of how > > I have done the best of the testing I could do here. I think we should > let this run its normal course and see if this breaks anything. I am > not sure how testing is done before patches are merged and what else > you expect me to do? > > I am adding the bpf mailing list to trigger the BPF CI. That should be another signal, that's how the BPF tree does its testing. https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pulls > > long it is going to take would be helpful here. > > > > -- > > paul-moore.com
