RE: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

RE: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

[Chris Paterson]

Hello,

> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: 15 December 2021 18:40
> 
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:32:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.86 release.
> > > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> >
> > I'm getting the gmp.h failures :-(.
> >
> >
> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab
> .com%2Fcip-project%2Fcip-testing%2Flinux-stable-rc-ci%2F-
> %2Fpipelines%2F430434332&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cchris.paterson2%40ren
> esas.com%7Cef488aaeb0b84b91a25a08d9bffa5dd5%7C53d82571da1947e49c
> b4625a166a4a2a%7C0%7C0%7C637751904307960001%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
> bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
> I6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=d4fq1iITMmiW79nbbG0Tf4srDwikrnVaPW%
> 2BH%2FITD9sY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> > I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> > stable series.
> >
> > To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> > build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.

Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments below...

> >
> > Easiest fix might be to add
> >
> > # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> >
> > to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> >
> > But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> > does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> > nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
> 
> But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
> kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
> (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.

Well this leads us to an interesting point.
At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip & stable).
What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
If the latter, which version?

Kind regards, Chris

> 
> We are not in the business of keeping older versions of gcc always
> working, right?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

RE: [cip-dev] 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

[Chris Paterson]

> From: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org <cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org> On
> Behalf Of Chris Paterson via lists.cip-project.org
> Sent: 20 December 2021 07:17
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: 15 December 2021 18:40
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:32:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.86 release.
> > > > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > >
> > > I'm getting the gmp.h failures :-(.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab
> > .com%2Fcip-project%2Fcip-testing%2Flinux-stable-rc-ci%2F-
> >
> %2Fpipelines%2F430434332&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cchris.paterson2%40ren
> >
> esas.com%7Cef488aaeb0b84b91a25a08d9bffa5dd5%7C53d82571da1947e49c
> >
> b4625a166a4a2a%7C0%7C0%7C637751904307960001%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
> >
> bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
> >
> I6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=d4fq1iITMmiW79nbbG0Tf4srDwikrnVaPW%
> > 2BH%2FITD9sY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >
> > > I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> > > stable series.
> > >
> > > To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> > > build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
> 
> Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
> I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments
> below...
> 
> > >
> > > Easiest fix might be to add
> > >
> > > # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> > >
> > > to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> > >
> > > But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> > > does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> > > nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
> >
> > But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
> > kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
> > (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.
> 
> Well this leads us to an interesting point.
> At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip &
> stable).
> What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we
> use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
> If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
> If the latter, which version?

Note that I've done a quick build test [0] with GCC v11.1.0 and 5.10.y-cip seems to build okay.
If anyone wants to do something similar in their tests, edit your .gitlab-ci.yml as in [1].

[0] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-kernel/linux-cip/-/pipelines/433007310
[1] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-kernel/linux-cip/-/commit/3185529010dfa5cd4ebe80d55b5c1c1ed23da4ce

Kind regards, Chris

> 
> Kind regards, Chris
> 
> >
> > We are not in the business of keeping older versions of gcc always
> > working, right?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h

Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --]

Hi!

> > > I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> > > stable series.
> > >
> > > To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> > > build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
> 
> Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
> I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments below...

Thank you.

> > > Easiest fix might be to add
> > >
> > > # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> > >
> > > to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> > >
> > > But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> > > does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> > > nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
> > 
> > But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
> > kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
> > (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.
> 
> Well this leads us to an interesting point.
> At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip & stable).
> What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
> If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
> If the latter, which version?
> 

We should do what our users are likely to do... they want stable
kernel, and will not update toolchain in middle of product
maintainance. [Updating toolchain when starting new product with given
-cip kernel is more likely].

I believe that means we should stick to specific version, but I'm not
sure what version it is. We support Debian distro, likely gcc version
from that distro would be a good option? Perhaps we should ask on TSC
meeting tommorow?

5.10 kernel was released in Dec 2020. At that time, gcc 8 and 9 were
maintained, and gcc 10 was new (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html).

To get some results for -stable testing, easiest options might be to
disable gcc plugin support in Kconfig.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

[Jan Kiszka]

On 20.12.21 10:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>>>> I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
>>>> stable series.
>>>>
>>>> To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
>>>> build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
>>
>> Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
>> I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments below...
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>>>> Easiest fix might be to add
>>>>
>>>> # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
>>>>
>>>> to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
>>>>
>>>> But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
>>>> does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
>>>> nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
>>>
>>> But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
>>> kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
>>> (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.
>>
>> Well this leads us to an interesting point.
>> At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip & stable).
>> What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
>> If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
>> If the latter, which version?
>>
> 
> We should do what our users are likely to do... they want stable
> kernel, and will not update toolchain in middle of product
> maintainance. [Updating toolchain when starting new product with given
> -cip kernel is more likely].
> 
> I believe that means we should stick to specific version, but I'm not
> sure what version it is. We support Debian distro, likely gcc version
> from that distro would be a good option? Perhaps we should ask on TSC
> meeting tommorow?
> 
> 5.10 kernel was released in Dec 2020. At that time, gcc 8 and 9 were
> maintained, and gcc 10 was new (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html).
> 
> To get some results for -stable testing, easiest options might be to
> disable gcc plugin support in Kconfig.
> 
> Best regards,
> 								Pavel
> 

The natural pairing would be "buster/kernel 4.19/gcc-8" and
"bullseye/kernel 5.10/gcc-10", indeed.

I'm definitely not able to attend the TSC call tomorrow. If you want to
discuss this topic, someone would have to pick up the kernel WG
representation.

Jan

Re: [cip-dev] 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

[nobuhiro1.iwamatsu]

Hi,

> We should do what our users are likely to do... they want stable
> kernel, and will not update toolchain in middle of product
> maintainance. [Updating toolchain when starting new product with given
> -cip kernel is more likely].
> 
> I believe that means we should stick to specific version, but I'm not
> sure what version it is. We support Debian distro, likely gcc version
> from that distro would be a good option? Perhaps we should ask on TSC
> meeting tommorow?

Yes, we recommend using GCC with the rootfs environment.
And weare using the same container at compile time.

> 
> 5.10 kernel was released in Dec 2020. At that time, gcc 8 and 9 were
> maintained, and gcc 10 was new (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html).
> 
> To get some results for -stable testing, easiest options might be to
> disable gcc plugin support in Kconfig.

+1.
Also, I think that this will not be necessary by preparing a build container
that matches the kernel.

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro
________________________________________
差出人: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org <cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org> が Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de> の代理で送信
送信日時: 2021年12月20日 18:58
宛先: Chris Paterson
CC: Pavel Machek; cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org
件名: Re: [cip-dev] 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

Hi!

> > > I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> > > stable series.
> > >
> > > To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> > > build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
>
> Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
> I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments below...

Thank you.

> > > Easiest fix might be to add
> > >
> > > # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> > >
> > > to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> > >
> > > But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> > > does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> > > nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
> >
> > But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
> > kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
> > (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.
>
> Well this leads us to an interesting point.
> At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip & stable).
> What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
> If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
> If the latter, which version?
>

We should do what our users are likely to do... they want stable
kernel, and will not update toolchain in middle of product
maintainance. [Updating toolchain when starting new product with given
-cip kernel is more likely].

I believe that means we should stick to specific version, but I'm not
sure what version it is. We support Debian distro, likely gcc version
from that distro would be a good option? Perhaps we should ask on TSC
meeting tommorow?

5.10 kernel was released in Dec 2020. At that time, gcc 8 and 9 were
maintained, and gcc 10 was new (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html).

To get some results for -stable testing, easiest options might be to
disable gcc plugin support in Kconfig.

Best regards,
                                                                Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany