On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:26:19AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:57:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:20:11PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Hello Paul, > > > > > > Thomas and Zhangjin have provided significant nolibc cleanups, and > > > fixes, as well as preparation work to later support riscv32. > > > > > > These consist in the following main series: > > > - generalization of stackprotector to other archs that were not > > > previously supported (riscv, mips, loongarch, arm, arm64) > > > > > > - general cleanups of the makefile, test report output, deduplication > > > of certain tests > > > > > > - slightly better compliance of some tests performed on certain syscalls > > > (e.g. no longer pass (void*)1 to gettimeofday() since glibc hates it). > > > > > > - add support for nanoseconds in stat() and statx() > > > > > > - fixes for some syscalls (e.g. ppoll() has 5 arguments not 4) > > > > > > - fixes around limits.h and INT_MAX / INT_FAST64_MAX > > > > > > I rebased the whole series on top of your latest dev branch (d19a9ca3d5) > > > and it works fine for all archs. > > > > > > I don't know if you're still planning on merging new stuff in this area > > > for 6.5 or not (since I know that it involves new series of tests on your > > > side as well), but given that Zhangjin will engage into deeper changes > > > later for riscv32 that will likely imply to update more syscalls to use > > > the time64 ones, I would prefer to split the cleanups from the hard stuff, > > > but I'll let you judge based on the current state of what's pending for > > > 6.5. > > > > > > In any case I'm putting all this here for now (not for merge yet): > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git 20230604-nolibc-rv32+stkp6 > > > > > > I'd like Thomas and Zhangjin to perform a last check to confirm they're > > > OK with this final integration. > > > > Given that the testing converges by the end of this week, I can't see > > any reason why these cannot make v6.5. > > Perfect, thank you! > > > (There were some kernel test > > robot complaints as well, valid or not I am not sure.) > > You mean in relation with nolibc stuff (or nolibc-test) or something > totally different ? Apologies, this was me being confused and failing to look closely. The complaints were not about nolibc, but rather about my patches that they were on top of. Not your problem! And please let me know when the next batch from your tree are ready to go. (You might have been saying that they were in your recent emails, but I thought I should double-check.) Thanx, Paul
