On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 16:43 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > Right, it's a small and fairly easily auditable list - it's more > about > the app than the double enable which was what I thought your concern > was. It's a bit annoying definitely and not something we want to do > in > general but for something like this where we're adding specific > coverage > for API extensions for the feature it seems like a reasonable > tradeoff. > > If the x86 toolchain/libc support is widely enough deployed (or you > just > don't mind any missing coverage) we could use the toolchain support > there and only have the manual enable for arm64, it'd be inconsistent > but not wildly so. > > > I'm hoping there is not too much of a gap before the glibc support starts filtering out. Long term, elf bit enabling is probably the right thing for the generic tests. Short term, manual enabling is ok with me if no one else minds. Maybe we could add my "don't do" list as a comment if we do manual enabling? I'll have to check your new series, but I also wonder if we could cram the manual enabling and status checking pieces into some headers and not have to have "if x86" "if arm" logic in the test themselves.
