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 539A6C7EE24 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230499AbjFFGpu (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2023 02:45:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48346 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234634AbjFFGps (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2023 02:45:48 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE6DE40; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 23:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 3566jWuo018103; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:45:32 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:45:32 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Zhangjin Wu Cc: arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, thomas@t-8ch.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] nolibc: add part2 of support for rv32 Message-ID: References: <20230606063421.355411-1-falcon@tinylab.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230606063421.355411-1-falcon@tinylab.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:34:21PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > Willy, Thomas, Arnd > > > Hi Zhangjin, > > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:25:35PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > The first two convert all compile failures to a return of -ENOSYS, if you do > > > like it, welcome your Reviewed-by. These two are required by the coming new > > > time64 syscalls for rv32, because they depends on how we cope with the > > > unsupported syscalls, returning -ENOSYS is really better than simply fail the > > > compiling. > > > > I had a look now and I can sya that I like this. Initially the supported > > syscalls were so restricted that it was not even imaginable to accept to > > build without any of them, but now that we're completing the list, some > > of them are less critical and I don't see why we'd fail to build just > > because one is missing. So yeah, a big +1 for -ENOSYS. > > > > Cool, I will prepare the new patchsets on them, welcome your new branch > with both of them, of course, still weclome Reviewed-by from Arnd and Thomas. I don't even think a new branch is needed, I can take them as-is it seems. > > > The third one is not that urgent, because some important syscalls are > > > still missing for rv32. It is added here only for compile test. > > > > I personally have no opinion on this one. I can't judge whether it will > > make things easier or more complicated at this point. It seems to me > > that for now it's just avoiding one extra line at the expense of some > > $(if) on several lines. Maybe it could help add more such archs, or > > maybe it can make them more complicated to debug, I don't know. I'm > > interested in others' opinions as well. > > As I explained why we did it in current way in this reply [1], Thomas had no > more questions on it, so I think Thomas was happy with it now and I got his > only left suggestion is that may be this patch should be applied after the > missing 64bit syscalls being added for there are several important test > failures currently, for me, it is ok before or after. > > Thomas, welcome your Reviewed-by on the makefile patch itself If you are really > happy with it now, thanks very much ;-) > > Willy, I will send the v2 syscalls helpers (also required by the coming 64bit > syscalls) and some other patches (mainly for test with faster kernel build) > about selftests/nolibc later, because we have not enough time for v6.5 test, > so, I suggest we can create new branch for v6.6 and my new patchsets will be > for v6.6. Agreed, thank you! Willy