On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:39:22AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 08:53:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Will keep thinking about it and hopefully propose a patch to make the > > > tests easier to use before we're too far in the 6.1 release. > > > > Another possibility is to have a separate developers' and maintainers' > > option. Linus and I do "make whatever" for some value of "whatever" > > that builds from scratch, doing whatever cleaning that might be required. > > Developers use targets that are faster but have the possibility of false > > positives and false negatives. > > > > But maybe you have something better in mind. > > > > > Thanks for keeping the conversation flowing, that helps me! > > > > Looking forward to seeing what you come up with! > > I could finally figure what was taking time in the installation process. > Interestingly, it's "make headers", which is not redone without a "make > clean" at the kernel level. The "make headers_install" only takes a few > hundred milliseconds, so issuing a systematic "make clean" in the nolibc > test dir only takes ~800ms here to perform a full rebuild, which is totally > acceptable to me. > > Thus what I've done is to mark the sysroot target as .phony and start it > with a removal of the current include dir so that we systematically rebuild > it. Now there's no such risk of running a test against an earlier version > anymore, and there are no "make clean" to worry about anymore either. > That looks much better to me! > > And I could confirm that just issuing: > > $ time make -j8 -C tools/testing/selftests/nolibc run > > after reverting Rasmus' fix led me to this pretty quickly: > > ... > Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#3) > make[1]: Leaving directory '/k' > 15 memcmp_20_e0 = 64 [FAIL] > 16 memcmp_e0_20 = -64 [FAIL] > See all results in /k/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/run.out > make: Leaving directory '/k/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc' > > real 0m14.538s > user 0m27.828s > sys 0m4.576s > > No more false positives nor false negatives anymore. I'm sending you > the patch separately. > > Thanks for the discussion, the solution is way better now! Nice, looking forward to the patch! Thanx, Paul
