On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:18:09PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:11:17AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > So FWIW:
> >
> > Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> [arm64]
Thank you all!
> Perfect, thanks! Paul, may I let you copy-paste the tested-by yourself ?
> If you prefer I'm fine with resending a series to you, I just don't want
> to needlessly spam you :-)
Done, with Valentin's and Mark's Tested-by.
> > It would be great if this could be applied soon so that it's possible to
> > use the rcutorture scripts without applying local hacks.
>
> Makes sense. I was wondering, should we mark them for stable ? I don't
> know if anyone relies on these tests to validate stable kernels in
> fact.
I added Fixes tags that should make this happen, and they are now visible
at -rcu branch "dev". Could you please check them for me?
c261145 tools/nolibc: Add the definition for dup()
79f220e tools/nolibc: Make dup2() rely on dup3() when available
c0c7c10 tools/nolibc: Make getpgrp() fall back to getpgid(0)
be60ca4 tools/nolibc: Implement fork() based on clone()
5b1c827 tools/nolibc: Implement poll() based on ppoll()
70ca7ae tools/nolibc: Get timeval, timespec and timezone from linux/time.h
f65d711 tools/nolibc: Remove incorrect definitions of __ARCH_WANT_*
35635d7 tools/nolibc: Emit detailed error for missing alternate syscall number
definitions
3c6ce7a tools/nolibc: Fix position of -lgcc in the documented example
26cec81 tools/rcutorture: Fix position of -lgcc in mkinitrd.sh
> > Willy, thanks for sorting this out, especially so quickly!
>
> You're welcome, and thanks to you for the detailed report and explanations.
Again, thank you all!
On getting this upstream quickly, if all goes well I expect to include
this in my pull request for the upcoming merge window.
Thanx, Paul
