On 30/01/20 11:49 am, Sandipan Das wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 30/01/20 12:29 am, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 1/28/20 1:38 AM, Sandipan Das wrote: >>> On 27/01/20 9:12 pm, Dave Hansen wrote: >>>> How have you tested this patch (and the whole series for that matter)? >>>> >>> I replaced the second patch with this one and did a build test. >>> Till v16, I had tested the whole series (build + run) on both a POWER8 >>> system (with 4K and 64K page sizes) and a Skylake SP system but for >>> x86_64 only. >> >> Do you have any idea why I was seeing x86 build errors and you were not? >> > > There were problems with patch 2 from v17. The fixed patch is what I replied > with previously in this thread. The test results that I posted were with that > patch included. Will post out v18 today with the fix. > In patch 2 of v17, the issue was with the target names. Upon adding something to TEST_GEN_FILES, rules for targets like the following are expected to be defined. <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys_32 <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys_64 <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys But instead, I only defined rules for these. protection_keys_32 protection_keys_64 protection_keys Hence the build was failing in these cases: $ make -C tools/testing/selftests $ make -C tools/testing/selftests/vm $ cd tools/testing/selftests/vm $ make But worked in these cases: $ make -C tools/testing/selftests/vm protection_keys $ cd tools/testing/selftests/vm $ make protection_keys This has been addressed in v18. - Sandipan
