From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DE7A255E34 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739210491; cv=none; b=pF4Fd8HicaWisl6u32ac23Q3IPijtTwvMQXpC9gEcgVIkv6o210NlJTQ0vBtE6K9lV82RD1oiEM/H4MJ5C5xDk+Qmu92u6GS4UOMKdKflJ+TGGzUGQeAf78ZUAt//N6qYUwMj66DoS3MDtNhs/zZfGsWz5MeTnOefyOMlLY3iro= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739210491; c=relaxed/simple; bh=flwnKuvxd+4U5jN0pKGmiVtt/ji5zPTgIlSYdnv9Jkk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dllizlKPznhQneVRqt6Iuw+cGUZeRLVqHeyJ90M4GT1GLqeh1IR9lpPAdLPvyvmi9HeuiEYL7BuZYBbD3d2lnQPdr7ek0cWtRQJuFSECJ4MihBWJG8WHAa279zeQWOqdIPgQBZIuYDAg0nojPKw9uiOHyRIrZAa4AR28j6tnY5I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=HtkmtI+C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="HtkmtI+C" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net CB303411A1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1739210489; bh=x/NT4JxDvfrGgWcKFBEtIQJA3+ZCBBaRwuhuryuCiRw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HtkmtI+C6qyTNz9dMg1h5p8rEeiNBpuOJfLVkEwfzIfy5DgiSbPOeZWKqKnaYHJQ7 +7EtfHStBsZC8ClGN6llOAy59ctMTCOevdTtchAMyEvZ8l2rkMz9MciqkKbcIhnBin 0TcCfTTUZRx194mtnl+zcMRwQr6NrU58NhnGcUE0HMEabU9yv9H4bAZIEkc1LJtO0n zHnNSbAagbGVJPgFH+AWxftSHAEvh+SQ41xnCHM79HQmNUXM8XEsxNsYE+r3SRfhYT k3PeoCxL2M8x6nrvzRA8quka/qztg5OrFslsf3imedAHEFp+OT6gtGMtp5d3YaTtFu 019qUchhJknYw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB303411A1; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:01:28 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submit-checklist: Expand on build tests against different word sizes In-Reply-To: <05c0b99c-c2e9-4702-90fd-8a4127586424@gmail.com> References: <05c0b99c-c2e9-4702-90fd-8a4127586424@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:01:28 -0700 Message-ID: <8734gl1xxj.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Akira Yokosawa writes: > Existing sentence on cross-compilation that mentions ppc64 does not > make much sense in today's perspective. > > Expand it for the benefits of testing against architectures of > different word sizes and endianness. > > Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa > Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap > --- > v2: Split out change in the English doc from v1 [1]. > Keep Randy's Rb tag (as it was meant for the change in English doc). > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250128102805.112691-2-akiyks@gmail.com/ > -- > Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > index e531dd504b6c..88b6358258d7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > @@ -91,9 +91,12 @@ Build your code > fix any issues. > > 2) Builds on multiple CPU architectures by using local cross-compile tools > - or some other build farm. Note that ppc64 is a good architecture for > - cross-compilation checking because it tends to use ``unsigned long`` for > - 64-bit quantities. > + or some other build farm. > + Note that testing against architectures of different word sizes > + (32- and 64-bit) and different endianness (big- and little-) is effective > + in catching various portability issues due to false assumptions on > + representable quantity range, data alignment, or endianness, among > + others. > Applied, thanks. jon