Re: nolibc patches, still possible for 6.5 ?

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:57:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:20:11PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hello Paul,
> > 
> > Thomas and Zhangjin have provided significant nolibc cleanups, and
> > fixes, as well as preparation work to later support riscv32.
> > 
> > These consist in the following main series:
> >   - generalization of stackprotector to other archs that were not
> >     previously supported (riscv, mips, loongarch, arm, arm64)
> > 
> >   - general cleanups of the makefile, test report output, deduplication
> >     of certain tests
> > 
> >   - slightly better compliance of some tests performed on certain syscalls
> >     (e.g. no longer pass (void*)1 to gettimeofday() since glibc hates it).
> > 
> >   - add support for nanoseconds in stat() and statx()
> > 
> >   - fixes for some syscalls (e.g. ppoll() has 5 arguments not 4)
> > 
> >   - fixes around limits.h and  INT_MAX / INT_FAST64_MAX
> > 
> > I rebased the whole series on top of your latest dev branch (d19a9ca3d5)
> > and it works fine for all archs.
> > 
> > I don't know if you're still planning on merging new stuff in this area
> > for 6.5 or not (since I know that it involves new series of tests on your
> > side as well), but given that Zhangjin will engage into deeper changes
> > later for riscv32 that will likely imply to update more syscalls to use
> > the time64 ones, I would prefer to split the cleanups from the hard stuff,
> > but I'll let you judge based on the current state of what's pending for
> > 6.5.
> > 
> > In any case I'm putting all this here for now (not for merge yet):
> > 
> >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git 20230604-nolibc-rv32+stkp6
> > 
> > I'd like Thomas and Zhangjin to perform a last check to confirm they're
> > OK with this final integration.
> 
> Given that the testing converges by the end of this week, I can't see
> any reason why these cannot make v6.5.

Perfect, thank you!

> (There were some kernel test
> robot complaints as well, valid or not I am not sure.)

You mean in relation with nolibc stuff (or nolibc-test) or something
totally different ?

Best regards,
Willy