On 7/9/20 12:49 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
>
> commit: 7cb32086e59b514a832a3e11f5370d37e7cfe022 ("selftests: simplify run_tests")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>
>
Thanks for the report. I will drop this patch for now from next.
Yauheni,
This patch broke x86 32-bit test run
make run_tests -C x86
Please resubmit the patch with the fix.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:36 PM Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/20 12:49 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
> >
> > commit: 7cb32086e59b514a832a3e11f5370d37e7cfe022 ("selftests: simplify run_tests")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the report. I will drop this patch for now from next.
>
> Yauheni,
>
> This patch broke x86 32-bit test run
> make run_tests -C x86
>
> Please resubmit the patch with the fix.
I did not check carefully the report, but isn't it expected that some
tests are moved after the patch since they originally were placed
incorrectly?
--
WBR, Yauheni
On 7/10/20 12:02 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:36 PM Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/9/20 12:49 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> Greeting,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
>>>
>>> commit: 7cb32086e59b514a832a3e11f5370d37e7cfe022 ("selftests: simplify run_tests")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the report. I will drop this patch for now from next.
>>
>> Yauheni,
>>
>> This patch broke x86 32-bit test run
>> make run_tests -C x86
>>
>> Please resubmit the patch with the fix.
>
> I did not check carefully the report, but isn't it expected that some
> tests are moved after the patch since they originally were placed
> incorrectly?
>
>
The failure doesn't have anything to do with test being moved. You can
reproduce this very easily by running make as shown below in x86 dir
under tools/testing/selftests
make run_tests -C x86
I reproduced the problem with your and patch and verified that the
problem tracks your patch. I dropped the patch from linux-next
Your other two patches in the series are fine.
In any case, this patch isn't really adding any functionality and
is a good cleanup. Let's do the cleanup right or not.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Hi, Shuah!
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:18:49 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/10/20 12:02 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:36 PM Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/9/20 12:49 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> Greeting,
>>>>
>>>> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
>>>>
>>>> commit: 7cb32086e59b514a832a3e11f5370d37e7cfe022 ("selftests:
>>>> simplify run_tests")
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report. I will drop this patch for now from next.
>>>
>>> Yauheni,
>>>
>>> This patch broke x86 32-bit test run
>>> make run_tests -C x86
>>>
>>> Please resubmit the patch with the fix.
>>
>> I did not check carefully the report, but isn't it expected that some
>> tests are moved after the patch since they originally were placed
>> incorrectly?
>>
>>
> The failure doesn't have anything to do with test being moved. You can
> reproduce this very easily by running make as shown below in x86 dir
> under tools/testing/selftests
> make run_tests -C x86
> I reproduced the problem with your and patch and verified that the
> problem tracks your patch. I dropped the patch from linux-next
> Your other two patches in the series are fine.
> In any case, this patch isn't really adding any functionality and
> is a good cleanup. Let's do the cleanup right or not.
Checked.
That is because with the patch both lib.mk and x86/Makefile add
the $(OUTPUT) prefix.
So the question is to agree about the convention, should lib.mk
targets expect short test names for TEST_PROGS or full path from
the subtests' Makefiles.
The existing code is hackish (incorrectly -- adding $(OUTPUT)
only to the first list members -- tries to handle it only for
out-of-tree build).
I can make the patch without adding $(OUTPUT). It will require to
fix possible tests which provided only one test and rely on that
behaviour for the OOT build. Do you have an easy way to get a
list of such tests?
--
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta