Em Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:06:15PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:28 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 15:30 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:12:49PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > > > But I guess the acks/reviews + my tests are enough to merge this as-is, > > > > thanks for your work on this! > > > > > > Ok, its in the 'next' branch so that it can go thru: > > > > > > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/actions/workflows/pahole.yml > > > > > > But the previous days are all failures, probably something else is > > > preventing this test from succeeding? Andrii? > > > > It looks like the latest run succeeded, while a number of previous > > runs got locked up for some reason. All using the same kernel > > checkpoint commit. I know how to setup local github runner, > > so I can try to replicate this by forking the repo, > > redirecting CI to my machine and executing it several times. > > Will do this over the weekend, need to work on some verifier > > bugs first. > > > > BPF selftests are extremely unreliable under slow Github runners, > unfortunately. Kernel either crashes or locks up very frequently. It > has nothing to do with libbpf and we don't seem to see this in BPF CI > due to having much faster runners there. > > I'm not sure what to do about this apart from trying to identify a > selftest that causes lock up (extremely time consuming endeavor) or > just wait till libbpf CI will be privileged enough to gain its own > fast AWS-based worker :) > > But it seems like the last scheduled run succeeded, I think you are good. I'm not sure it got the btf_features patch, I'll try to change the cmake files to print the HEAD so that when looking at the output in the github actions I can be sure that it is using what needs to be tested. - Arnaldo
