From: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
To: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>,
Guillaume La Roque <glaroque@baylibre.com>,
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>,
Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org>,
U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] efi_loader: Complete the bootflow_efi() test
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:03:40 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250118170340.GZ3476@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFLszThscvJzBrnSovQsrMr5ie75NVc1yUss0-c_WZLksC7Rcg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2357 bytes --]
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 08:35:42PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 at 13:20, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:01:36PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Sure. test/cmd/hash.c::dm_test_cmd_hash_md5 fails randomly, in maybe 1
> > > > out of 100 runs, via pytest, in sandbox. Not via "./u-boot -T -c 'ut
> dm
> > > > dm_test_cmd_hash_md5'" however (I stopped checking after 1000
> > > > iterations). I was iterating over "and built with clang" but I think
> it
> > > > happens with gcc too, from the actual failures in CI. And you can use
> > > > "-k ut" to limit to just what's matched there, so it's a quicker
> > > > iteration.
> > >
> > > Hmmm do you have a link? It's hard to imagine what it is, but perhaps
> > > a dependency on a previous test.
> >
> > Sure:
> > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/993200#L286
> >
> > My current gut feeling is that we've got some section overlap issue
> > somewhere. And, FWIW, if I turn off EFI_LOADER I still see it. And if
> > you use the same binary it won't always fail.
>
> The only way I think the hash command can return CMD_RET_USAGE is if there
> are not enough arguments.
>
> The only way that can happen with this code:
>
> ut_assertok(run_command("hash md5 $loadaddr 0", 0));
>
> is if loadaddr is undefined.
>
> But (like you, I suspect) I cannot find how that could be.
>
> In fact, I can't even build with clang:
>
> $ buildman -O clang-17 --bo sandbox -w -o /tmp/b/sandbox-clang
> Building current source for 1 boards (1 thread, 32 jobs per thread)
> sandbox: + sandbox
> +/usr/bin/llvm-ar: error: arch/sandbox/cpu/built-in.o: Opaque pointers are
> only supported in -opaque-pointers mode (Producer: 'LLVM17.0.6' Reader:
> 'LLVM 14.0.0')
> +make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:333: arch/sandbox/cpu/built-in.o]
> Error 1
> +make[1]: *** [Makefile:1906: arch/sandbox/cpu] Error 2
> +make: *** [Makefile:177: sub-make] Error 2
> 0 0 1 /1 sandbox
This command works fine for me in the CI container, so I don't know
what's going on with your local installation. I've also seen CI fail
enough times now with just regular sandbox that I don't _think_ it's a
compiler specific issue. Thanks for looking in to this more!
--
Tom
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-18 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-06 14:47 [PATCH 0/8] efi_loader: Complete the bootflow_efi() test Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 1/8] sandbox: Make USB controller as having active DMA Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 2/8] efi_loader: Fix display of addresses in log Simon Glass
2025-01-07 13:37 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2025-01-07 13:57 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-08 7:12 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2025-01-08 17:03 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 3/8] efi_loader: Return the memory map in pointer format Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 4/8] efi_loader: Correct bounce-buffer setup Simon Glass
2025-01-17 10:33 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2025-01-18 4:35 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 5/8] efi_loader: Check memory allocations in bootflow_efi test() Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 6/8] efi_loader: Update testapp to get memory map correctly Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 7/8] efi_loader: Check that the bootflow is not removed by app Simon Glass
2025-01-06 14:47 ` [PATCH 8/8] efi_loader: Test that active-DMA devices are removed Simon Glass
2025-01-06 17:00 ` [PATCH 0/8] efi_loader: Complete the bootflow_efi() test Heinrich Schuchardt
2025-01-07 12:15 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-07 13:11 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2025-01-07 13:57 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-07 15:11 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-07 15:47 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2025-01-08 13:39 ` Caleb Connolly
2025-01-08 17:02 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-08 17:02 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-08 19:14 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-09 15:02 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-09 16:51 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-10 13:40 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-10 16:48 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-13 19:01 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-13 20:20 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-18 4:35 ` Simon Glass
2025-01-18 17:03 ` Tom Rini [this message]
2025-01-18 17:15 ` Tom Rini
2025-01-31 0:10 ` Simon Glass
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250118170340.GZ3476@bill-the-cat \
--to=trini@konsulko.com \
--cc=glaroque@baylibre.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=mkorpershoek@baylibre.com \
--cc=sjg@chromium.org \
--cc=sughosh.ganu@linaro.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
--cc=xypron.glpk@gmx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox