New images and possible arch rename

New images and possible arch rename

[Ana Guerrero Lopez]

Hi,

After the PR for adding MIPS got accepted, I have built new debian rootfs images in staging.
They are available at http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretch/20180830.2/
and http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretchtests/20180830.1/

The stretchtest images have been built with this patch https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-build-staging/pull/54
needed to fix the build of IGT GPU tools from git. Merge welcome!


We have now images for 8 architectures:

- armhf, 32 bits ARM v7 with floating point, little endian.
- armel, 32 bits ARM v4t, little endian.
- arm64, 64 bits ARM v8, little endian. Also known as AArch64.
- x86, 32 bits. Also known as i386.
- x86_64, 64 bits x86. Also known as amd64.
- mips, 32 bits, big endian.
- mipsel, 32 bits, little endian.
- mips64el, 64 bits little endian.

Except for x86 and x86_64, we're using the names used in debian for the archs.
Any objection against renaming them in the future as i386 and amd64? Or at the very least to name
x86 as i386? Guillaume has pointed to me that currently in the kernelci x86 means only x86 on 32 bits
and we would need to introduce x86_64 (or amd64). So for avoiding confusion with x86 and x86_64,
the rename would be a good idea.

Cheers,

Ana

Re: [kernelci] New images and possible arch rename

[Guillaume Tucker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2422 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:32 AM Ana Guerrero Lopez <
ana.guerrero@collabora.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After the PR for adding MIPS got accepted, I have built new debian rootfs
> images in staging.
> They are available at
> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretch/20180830.2/
> and
> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretchtests/20180830.1/
>
> The stretchtest images have been built with this patch
> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-build-staging/pull/54
> needed to fix the build of IGT GPU tools from git. Merge welcome!
>

Thanks, it's now merged on staging.

We have now images for 8 architectures:
>
> - armhf, 32 bits ARM v7 with floating point, little endian.
> - armel, 32 bits ARM v4t, little endian.
> - arm64, 64 bits ARM v8, little endian. Also known as AArch64.
> - x86, 32 bits. Also known as i386.
> - x86_64, 64 bits x86. Also known as amd64.
> - mips, 32 bits, big endian.
> - mipsel, 32 bits, little endian.
> - mips64el, 64 bits little endian.
>
> Except for x86 and x86_64, we're using the names used in debian for the
> archs.
> Any objection against renaming them in the future as i386 and amd64? Or at
> the very least to name
> x86 as i386? Guillaume has pointed to me that currently in the kernelci
> x86 means only x86 on 32 bits
> and we would need to introduce x86_64 (or amd64). So for avoiding
> confusion with x86 and x86_64,
> the rename would be a good idea.
>

There's an "arch_map" YAML attribute in new file system
definitions which can be used to map the kernel-stype arch names
with arbitrary file system specific ones.  So yes I think the
Debian file systems should follow the standard Debian names, and
the map updated to do the translation.

There is another related issue which needs a bit of
clarification.  At the moment we only build kernels with
ARCH=x86.  This results in binaries for different archs depending
on whether they were built with i386_defconfig or
x86_64_defconfig, which is fine.  However, it means that we can't
differentiate the user-space between i386 and x86_64.  To be
compatible with all the kernels, all the x86 builds end up
running with the i386 user-space and never the x86_64 one.

It seems that running with x86_64 user-space would be a good
thing to extend the test coverage.  Would it be OK to fix this by
using i386 and x86_64 as kernel arch names instead of just x86?

Cheers,
Guillaume

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3600 bytes --]

Re: [kernelci] New images and possible arch rename

[Kevin Hilman]

"Guillaume Tucker" <guillaume.tucker@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:32 AM Ana Guerrero Lopez <
> ana.guerrero@collabora.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After the PR for adding MIPS got accepted, I have built new debian rootfs
>> images in staging.
>> They are available at
>> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretch/20180830.2/
>> and
>> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretchtests/20180830.1/
>>
>> The stretchtest images have been built with this patch
>> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-build-staging/pull/54
>> needed to fix the build of IGT GPU tools from git. Merge welcome!
>>
>
> Thanks, it's now merged on staging.
>
> We have now images for 8 architectures:
>>
>> - armhf, 32 bits ARM v7 with floating point, little endian.
>> - armel, 32 bits ARM v4t, little endian.
>> - arm64, 64 bits ARM v8, little endian. Also known as AArch64.
>> - x86, 32 bits. Also known as i386.
>> - x86_64, 64 bits x86. Also known as amd64.
>> - mips, 32 bits, big endian.
>> - mipsel, 32 bits, little endian.
>> - mips64el, 64 bits little endian.
>>
>> Except for x86 and x86_64, we're using the names used in debian for the
>> archs.
>> Any objection against renaming them in the future as i386 and amd64? Or at
>> the very least to name
>> x86 as i386? Guillaume has pointed to me that currently in the kernelci
>> x86 means only x86 on 32 bits
>> and we would need to introduce x86_64 (or amd64). So for avoiding
>> confusion with x86 and x86_64,
>> the rename would be a good idea.
>>
>
> There's an "arch_map" YAML attribute in new file system
> definitions which can be used to map the kernel-stype arch names
> with arbitrary file system specific ones.  So yes I think the
> Debian file systems should follow the standard Debian names, and
> the map updated to do the translation.
>
> There is another related issue which needs a bit of
> clarification.  At the moment we only build kernels with
> ARCH=x86.  This results in binaries for different archs depending
> on whether they were built with i386_defconfig or
> x86_64_defconfig, which is fine.  However, it means that we can't
> differentiate the user-space between i386 and x86_64.  To be
> compatible with all the kernels, all the x86 builds end up
> running with the i386 user-space and never the x86_64 one.
>
> It seems that running with x86_64 user-space would be a good
> thing to extend the test coverage.  Would it be OK to fix this by
> using i386 and x86_64 as kernel arch names instead of just x86?

That seems like the right thing to do to me.

Kevin

Re: [kernelci] New images and possible arch rename

[Guillaume Tucker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2906 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:23 PM Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:

> "Guillaume Tucker" <guillaume.tucker@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:32 AM Ana Guerrero Lopez <
> > ana.guerrero@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After the PR for adding MIPS got accepted, I have built new debian
> rootfs
> >> images in staging.
> >> They are available at
> >>
> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretch/20180830.2/
> >> and
> >>
> http://staging-storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/debian/stretchtests/20180830.1/
> >>
> >> The stretchtest images have been built with this patch
> >> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-build-staging/pull/54
> >> needed to fix the build of IGT GPU tools from git. Merge welcome!
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, it's now merged on staging.
> >
> > We have now images for 8 architectures:
> >>
> >> - armhf, 32 bits ARM v7 with floating point, little endian.
> >> - armel, 32 bits ARM v4t, little endian.
> >> - arm64, 64 bits ARM v8, little endian. Also known as AArch64.
> >> - x86, 32 bits. Also known as i386.
> >> - x86_64, 64 bits x86. Also known as amd64.
> >> - mips, 32 bits, big endian.
> >> - mipsel, 32 bits, little endian.
> >> - mips64el, 64 bits little endian.
> >>
> >> Except for x86 and x86_64, we're using the names used in debian for the
> >> archs.
> >> Any objection against renaming them in the future as i386 and amd64? Or
> at
> >> the very least to name
> >> x86 as i386? Guillaume has pointed to me that currently in the kernelci
> >> x86 means only x86 on 32 bits
> >> and we would need to introduce x86_64 (or amd64). So for avoiding
> >> confusion with x86 and x86_64,
> >> the rename would be a good idea.
> >>
> >
> > There's an "arch_map" YAML attribute in new file system
> > definitions which can be used to map the kernel-stype arch names
> > with arbitrary file system specific ones.  So yes I think the
> > Debian file systems should follow the standard Debian names, and
> > the map updated to do the translation.
> >
> > There is another related issue which needs a bit of
> > clarification.  At the moment we only build kernels with
> > ARCH=x86.  This results in binaries for different archs depending
> > on whether they were built with i386_defconfig or
> > x86_64_defconfig, which is fine.  However, it means that we can't
> > differentiate the user-space between i386 and x86_64.  To be
> > compatible with all the kernels, all the x86 builds end up
> > running with the i386 user-space and never the x86_64 one.
> >
> > It seems that running with x86_64 user-space would be a good
> > thing to extend the test coverage.  Would it be OK to fix this by
> > using i386 and x86_64 as kernel arch names instead of just x86?
>
> That seems like the right thing to do to me.
>

I've created a Github issue to capture that:
https://github.com/kernelci/lava-ci/issues/123

Guillaume

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4329 bytes --]