Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:32:20 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kselftest: Support nolibc
Message-ID: <bdac4e4a-383d-4d60-8ce4-f26c1e265335@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230405-kselftest-nolibc-v1-0-63fbcd70b202@kernel.org>
 <ZC7VLXGpB8PRdj12@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MTmPwNu10y8JhqJR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZC7VLXGpB8PRdj12@1wt.eu>
Precedence: bulk


--MTmPwNu10y8JhqJR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:20:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:56:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > At present the kselftest header can't be used with nolibc since it makes
> > use of vprintf() which is not available in nolibc and seems like it would
> > be inappropriate to implement given the minimal system requirements and
> > environment intended for nolibc.

> In fact we already have vfprintf(), and printf() is based on it, so
> wouldn't it just be a matter of adding vprintf() that calls vfprintf()
> for your case ? Maybe just something like this :

>   static int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args)
>   {
> 	return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args);
>   }

> It's possible I'm missing something, but it's also possible you didn't
> find vfprintf() which is why I prefer to raise my hand ;-)

Oh, yes - I just didn't find that.  Can't remember what I searched for
but it didn't match.

> > This has resulted in some open coded
> > kselftests which use nolibc to test features that are supposed to be
> > controlled via libc and therefore better exercised in an environment with
> > no libc.

> Yeah that's ugly. In nolibc-test we now have two build targets so that
> we can more easily verify the compatibility between the default libc and
> nolibc, so my recommendation would be to stick to a common subset of both
> libcs, but not to rely on nolibc-specific stuff that could make tests
> harder to debug.

For these features we simply never want to run with a proper libc since
if we use a libc which has support for the features then we can't
meaningfully interact with them.  We're trying to test interfaces that
libc is supposed to use.

--MTmPwNu10y8JhqJR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmQu1/MACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AKrQf9FJ4PEMz9Ni8fLSHTryCUuwHgsy8fRLZ3E6W81upwXdouPyElgX3Rz/Xy
yY1pRVTt8kH4WH36JsswWeXSO1UzyRLFi9JOpeQtWOXRIiB+8fwNEGqqIW3nw2p+
LNE4ew8WlOwKMbOxBxR6bGP8rfILBLogGQrT9eoxoP13e6+6lxg9EB9ydjcGWwlG
CLw+zUg73api6eKp5KY2cczbt5uXjTynFSygQo5YXaQ9a4vMzqwb9y9myIq4bs57
6A1yyfbP9+2nBQ7WSijAU+/jPAbE37mZvV74s9AxXu5dUgTaGEn8RsfVX44DYamw
Biml/SBG2ZWtwJbZt8/ttN08eP7n4A==
=WIUj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MTmPwNu10y8JhqJR--