On 30/01/20 11:49 am, Sandipan Das wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 30/01/20 12:29 am, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 1/28/20 1:38 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
On 27/01/20 9:12 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
How have you tested this patch (and the whole series for that matter)?
I replaced the second patch with this one and did a build test. Till v16, I had tested the whole series (build + run) on both a POWER8 system (with 4K and 64K page sizes) and a Skylake SP system but for x86_64 only.
Do you have any idea why I was seeing x86 build errors and you were not?
There were problems with patch 2 from v17. The fixed patch is what I replied with previously in this thread. The test results that I posted were with that patch included. Will post out v18 today with the fix.
In patch 2 of v17, the issue was with the target names. Upon adding something to TEST_GEN_FILES, rules for targets like the following are expected to be defined. <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys_32 <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys_64 <path-to-linux-source>/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys
But instead, I only defined rules for these. protection_keys_32 protection_keys_64 protection_keys
Hence the build was failing in these cases: $ make -C tools/testing/selftests $ make -C tools/testing/selftests/vm $ cd tools/testing/selftests/vm $ make
But worked in these cases: $ make -C tools/testing/selftests/vm protection_keys $ cd tools/testing/selftests/vm $ make protection_keys
This has been addressed in v18.
- Sandipan