On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 07:13:08PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:04:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
My intent is to push these nolicb patches into the upcoming v6.2 merge window:
2318a710bffbd tools/nolibc: Fix missing strlen() definition and infinite loop with gcc-12 6937b8de8f1c3 tools/nolibc/string: Fix memcmp() implementation e1bbfe393c900 selftests/nolibc: Add 7 tests for memcmp() 3f2c1c45a3a9a selftests/nolibc: Always rebuild the sysroot when running a test
I didn't see the problem until I queued the third patch (e1bbfe393c900), and it is still in -rcu, not in v6.1.
What am I missing here?
I thought that since some of them are fixes, they would be pushed during 6.1-rc so that we don't release 6.1 with known defects. For example Rasmus' fix for memcmp() or the strlen() fix would IMHO make sense for this release since we're aware of the bugs and we have the fixes. The 3rd one is indeed an addition and in no way a fix and it can easily wait for 6.2. The 4th one is more of a usability fix but I agree that for this last one it's debatable, I was mostly seeing this as a possiility to avoid causing needless confusion.
Hoping this clarifies my initial question.
Very much so, thank you!
I was not considering the bug fixed by the first two patches to be serious, my mistake, apologies for my misclassification.
No worries, I wasn't probably clear upfront about the purpose.
Given that background, I would rebase these two, test them, and send off a pull request, probably early next week.
2318a710bffbd tools/nolibc: Fix missing strlen() definition and infinite loop with gcc-12 6937b8de8f1c3 tools/nolibc/string: Fix memcmp() implementation
Perfect, thank you!
I would push the other two commits into the upcoming merge window.
OK!
Or might the discussion between you and Rasmus result in changes to either of those first two commits? If so, I should of course wait for that discussion to resolve.
We'll see, but in any case it would just be a minor detail, but I'll give you a quick response so that you don't have to deal with multiple versions of the patch, we all know that it's painful.
If I don't hear otherwise from you by the end of tomorrow (Friday), Pacific Time, I will rebase those two patches in preparation for sending a pull request for the regression. I will of course run the pull-message text past you before sending the pull request.
Thanx, Paul