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 AC9CEC433F5 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 22:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234536AbhKTWXV (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:23:21 -0500 Received: from mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.246]:59507 "EHLO mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236461AbhKTWXR (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:23:17 -0500 Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-195-103-97.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au [49.195.103.97]) by mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 185FB8A11B7; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 09:20:10 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1moYiP-00BFd9-Jw; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 09:20:09 +1100 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 09:20:09 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Helmut Grohne , Bastian Germann , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] debian: Fix FTCBFS: Skip crc32 test (Closes: #999879) Message-ID: <20211120222009.GB449541@dread.disaster.area> References: <20211119171241.102173-1-bage@debian.org> <20211119171241.102173-3-bage@debian.org> <20211119231105.GA449541@dread.disaster.area> <20211120171548.GB24307@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211120171548.GB24307@magnolia> X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=epq8cqlX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6199749b a=fP9RlOTWD4uZJjPSFnn6Ew==:117 a=fP9RlOTWD4uZJjPSFnn6Ew==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=vIxV3rELxO4A:10 a=3_uRt0xjAAAA:8 a=xNf9USuDAAAA:8 a=7-415B0cAAAA:8 a=_ohoPkjYQNs3RZ_xxP4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=z1SuboXgGPGzQ8_2mWib:22 a=SEwjQc04WA-l_NiBhQ7s:22 a=biEYGPWJfzWAr4FL6Ov7:22 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 09:15:48AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 08:32:40AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:11:05AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > I don't get it. The crcselftest does not use liburcu in > > > any way, nor does it try to link against liburcu, so it should not > > > fail because other parts of xfsprogs use liburcu. > > > > > > What's the build error that occurs? > > > > As the build log shows, that's not technically accurate. You can find > > logs of test builds for various architecture combinations at > > http://crossqa.debian.net/src/xfsprogs. This is also available as a link > > called "cross" in https://tracker.debian.org/xfsprogs. > > > > The relevant part is: > > | [TEST] CRC32 > > | In file included from crc32.c:35: > > | ../include/platform_defs.h:27:10: fatal error: urcu.h: No such file or directory > > | 27 | #include > > | | ^~~~~~~~ > > | compilation terminated. > > > > I failed to figure a good way of dropping either include directive. > > > > > We need to fix the generic cross-build problem in the xfsprogs code, > > > not slap a distro-specific build band-aid over it. > > > > I fully agree with this in principle. However, when I fail to find that > > upstreamable solution, I try to at least provide a Debian-specific > > solution to iterate from. > > > > Can you propose a way to drop either #include? > > Frankly I don't really see the value in crc32selftest when cross > compiling -- sure, the crc32c code works correctly on the build host, > but that proves nothing about the (cross-)built binaries that end up in > the package. Yup, that's pretty much what I was getting at. > The selftest code is modular enough that it's included in xfs_io and it > seems to run in under 500us even on my ancient raspberry pi 3b+ > downclocked to 600mhz. Why don't we just add it to mkfs and repair? > Those tools shouldn't be run all that frequently, and now we'll know > immediately if crc32c is broken on a user's system. > > Then we don't need the build-time selftest at all. Sounds reasonable, my only concern is what do users do when xfs-repair fails the self test and they need to fix their filesystem? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com