On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 07:01:34PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 08:56:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 08:03:40AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > This adds 7 combinations of input values for memcmp() using signed and > > > unsigned bytes, which will trigger on the original code before Rasmus' > > > fix. This is mostly aimed at helping backporters verify their work, and > > > showing how tests for corner cases can be added to the selftests suite. > > > > > > Before the fix it reports: > > > 12 memcmp_20_20 = 0 [OK] > > > 13 memcmp_20_60 = -64 [OK] > > > 14 memcmp_60_20 = 64 [OK] > > > 15 memcmp_20_e0 = 64 [FAIL] > > > 16 memcmp_e0_20 = -64 [FAIL] > > > 17 memcmp_80_e0 = -96 [OK] > > > 18 memcmp_e0_80 = 96 [OK] > > > > > > And after: > > > 12 memcmp_20_20 = 0 [OK] > > > 13 memcmp_20_60 = -64 [OK] > > > 14 memcmp_60_20 = 64 [OK] > > > 15 memcmp_20_e0 = -192 [OK] > > > 16 memcmp_e0_20 = 192 [OK] > > > 17 memcmp_80_e0 = -96 [OK] > > > 18 memcmp_e0_80 = 96 [OK] > > > > > > Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> > > > > I have pulled both of these in, thank you! > > Thanks! > > > One thing, though... I had to do "make clean" in both tools/include/nolibc > > and tools/testing/selftests/nolibc to make those two "[FAIL]" indications > > go away. Does this mean that I am doing something wrong? > > No you didn't do anything wrong, it was the same for me and initially it > was intentional, but probably it wasn't that good an idea. What happens > is that we first prepare a pseudo-sysroot with kernel headers and nolibc > headers, then we build the test based on this sysroot. Thus if any uapi > header or nolibc header changes, nothing is detected. And I'm not much > willing to always reinstall everything for every single test, nor to > detect long dependency chains. Maybe I should think about adding another > target to clean+test at the same time, or maybe make the current > "nolibc-test" target do that and have a "retest" to only rebuild. But > that needs to be thought about with the QEMU test as well (because most > of the time for a quick test I don't build the kernel nor start QEMU, I > just call the executable directly). > > Any ideas or suggestions are welcome, of course. We could consider that > if we build a kernel and start QEMU, it's long enough to justify a > systematic clean maybe ? > > > It would be good to know before I send the pull request containing these, > > so that we can let Linus know of anything special he needs to do to > > ensure a valid test result. > > I see. In the worst case, a preliminary "make clean" will do it. We just > need to decide what's the best solution for everyone (i.e. not waste too > much time between tests while not getting misleading results by accident). Maybe just document the careful/slow way, then people doing it more frequently can do it the clever/fast way. My guess is that the careful/slow is this: pushd tools/include/nolibc make clean make popd pushd tools/testing/selftests/nolibc make clean make -j32 run Or did I miss a turn in there somewhere? Thanx, Paul
