Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] selftests: Fix cpuid / vendor checking build issues

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1978 bytes --]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024, Shuah Khan wrote:

> On 9/3/24 08:45, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > This series first generalizes resctrl selftest non-contiguous CAT check
> > to not assume non-AMD vendor implies Intel. Second, it improves
> > selftests such that the use of __cpuid_count() does not lead into a
> > build failure (happens at least on ARM).
> > 
> > While ARM does not currently support resctrl features, there's an
> > ongoing work to enable resctrl support also for it on the kernel side.
> > In any case, a common header such as kselftest.h should have a proper
> > fallback in place for what it provides, thus it seems justified to fix
> > this common level problem on the common level rather than e.g.
> > disabling build for resctrl selftest for archs lacking resctrl support.
> > 
> > I've dropped reviewed and tested by tags from the last patch in v3 due
> > to major changes into the makefile logic. So it would be helpful if
> > Muhammad could retest with this version.
> > 
> > Acquiring ARCH in lib.mk will likely allow some cleanup into some
> > subdirectory makefiles but that is left as future work because this
> > series focuses in fixing cpuid/build.
> 
> > 
> > v4:
> > - New patch to reorder x86 selftest makefile to avoid clobbering CFLAGS
> >    (would cause __cpuid_count() related build fail otherwise)
> > 
> I don't like the way this patch series is mushrooming. I am not
> convinced that changes to lib.mk and x86 Makefile are necessary.

I didn't like it either what I found from the various makefiles. I think 
there are many things done which conflict with what lib.mk seems to try to 
do.

I tried to ask in the first submission what test I should use in the 
header file as I'm not very familiar with how arch specific is done in 
userspace in the first place nor how it should be done within kselftest 
framework.

> I will take a look at this to see if this can be simplified.

Sure, thanks.

-- 
 i.