* RE: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review [not found] ` <Ybo2lbHVaASDyAcC@kroah.com> @ 2021-12-20 7:16 ` Chris Paterson 2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek [not found] ` <16C26552C5A174AF.6275@lists.cip-project.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Chris Paterson @ 2021-12-20 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek, cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org 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&data=04%7C01%7Cchris.paterson2%40ren > esas.com%7Cef488aaeb0b84b91a25a08d9bffa5dd5%7C53d82571da1947e49c > b4625a166a4a2a%7C0%7C0%7C637751904307960001%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC > I6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=d4fq1iITMmiW79nbbG0Tf4srDwikrnVaPW% > 2BH%2FITD9sY%3D&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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review 2021-12-20 7:16 ` 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review Chris Paterson @ 2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek 2021-12-20 17:04 ` Jan Kiszka 2021-12-21 13:23 ` [cip-dev] " nobuhiro1.iwamatsu 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2021-12-20 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Paterson; +Cc: Pavel Machek, cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review 2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek @ 2021-12-20 17:04 ` Jan Kiszka 2021-12-21 13:23 ` [cip-dev] " nobuhiro1.iwamatsu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jan Kiszka @ 2021-12-20 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek, Chris Paterson; +Cc: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [cip-dev] 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review 2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek 2021-12-20 17:04 ` Jan Kiszka @ 2021-12-21 13:23 ` nobuhiro1.iwamatsu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: nobuhiro1.iwamatsu @ 2021-12-21 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: chris.paterson2, cip-dev; +Cc: pavel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <16C26552C5A174AF.6275@lists.cip-project.org>]
* RE: [cip-dev] 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review [not found] ` <16C26552C5A174AF.6275@lists.cip-project.org> @ 2021-12-20 8:18 ` Chris Paterson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Chris Paterson @ 2021-12-20 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org, Pavel Machek > 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&data=04%7C01%7Cchris.paterson2%40ren > > > esas.com%7Cef488aaeb0b84b91a25a08d9bffa5dd5%7C53d82571da1947e49c > > > b4625a166a4a2a%7C0%7C0%7C637751904307960001%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > > > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC > > > I6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=d4fq1iITMmiW79nbbG0Tf4srDwikrnVaPW% > > 2BH%2FITD9sY%3D&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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-21 13:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20211215172024.787958154@linuxfoundation.org>
[not found] ` <20211215183223.GB10909@duo.ucw.cz>
[not found] ` <Ybo2lbHVaASDyAcC@kroah.com>
2021-12-20 7:16 ` 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review Chris Paterson
2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek
2021-12-20 17:04 ` Jan Kiszka
2021-12-21 13:23 ` [cip-dev] " nobuhiro1.iwamatsu
[not found] ` <16C26552C5A174AF.6275@lists.cip-project.org>
2021-12-20 8:18 ` Chris Paterson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox