From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC49C433FE for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:59:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234847AbiJZT7O (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:59:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49236 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234650AbiJZT7J (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:59:09 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0D53B98C; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 29QJx2xa024285; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:59:02 +0200 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:59:02 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: always rebuild the sysroot when running a test Message-ID: <20221026195902.GB24197@1wt.eu> References: <20221026054508.19634-1-w@1wt.eu> <20221026164825.GN5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221026164825.GN5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:45:08AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Works like a champ with reverting and unreverting c9388e0c1c6c > ("tools/nolibc/string: Fix memcmp() implementation"), thank you!!! Thanks for the feedback, and glad it suits your needs as well. I hope that it will progressively encourage a few of us to enhance it with more tests. > I have queued this. I expect to push this into the next merge window, > thus avoiding the need to document the need for "make clean" in my > pull request. ;-) Stupid question, is it really worth postponing it, considering that we've just introduced this series right now ? I mean, if the current usage is confusing, it's probably better to propose the fix before 6.1-final ? It's not a new feature here but rather a fix for a recently introduced one, thus I think it could be part of the next fix series. Rest assured I don't want to put a mess into your patch workflow, just asking :-) Thanks! Willy