| Message ID | 20240813104515.19152-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests: Fix cpuid / vendor checking build issues | expand |
On 8/13/24 04:45, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > First, generalize resctrl selftest non-contiguous CAT check to not > assume non-AMD vendor implies Intel. Second, improve kselftest common > parts and resctrl selftest such that the use of __cpuid_count() does > not lead into a build failure (happens at least on ARM). > > The last patch might still require some work on which symbol the > conditional in kselftest.h is implemented. I could not find any > pre-existing one that could be used. Perhaps somebody who's more > familiar with the kselftest build system has a better suggestion on > which symbol the logic should be based at? > > Ilpo Järvinen (3): > selftests/resctrl: Generalize non-contiguous CAT check > selftests/resctrl: Always initialize ecx to avoid build warnings > [RFC] kselftest: Provide __cpuid_count() stub on non-x86 archs > > tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 6 +++++ > tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 4 ++++ > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------- > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > These changes look good to me. Can you send the RFC patch without the RFC tag for me to pull in? I don't apply RFC patches. Usama, does this fix the problem you are seeing? Hi Reinette - do these look okay to you? Can you give me an ack if they do? thanks, -- Shuah
On 8/21/24 11:30 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 8/13/24 04:45, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >> First, generalize resctrl selftest non-contiguous CAT check to not >> assume non-AMD vendor implies Intel. Second, improve kselftest common >> parts and resctrl selftest such that the use of __cpuid_count() does >> not lead into a build failure (happens at least on ARM). >> >> The last patch might still require some work on which symbol the >> conditional in kselftest.h is implemented. I could not find any >> pre-existing one that could be used. Perhaps somebody who's more >> familiar with the kselftest build system has a better suggestion on >> which symbol the logic should be based at? >> >> Ilpo Järvinen (3): >> selftests/resctrl: Generalize non-contiguous CAT check >> selftests/resctrl: Always initialize ecx to avoid build warnings >> [RFC] kselftest: Provide __cpuid_count() stub on non-x86 archs >> >> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 6 +++++ >> tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 4 ++++ >> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------- >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> > > These changes look good to me. Can you send the RFC patch without the > RFC tag > for me to pull in? I don't apply RFC patches. > > Usama, does this fix the problem you are seeing? Yeah, build errors are resolved. > > Hi Reinette - do these look okay to you? Can you give me an ack if they do? > > thanks, > -- Shuah >
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 8/21/24 11:30 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 8/13/24 04:45, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >> First, generalize resctrl selftest non-contiguous CAT check to not > >> assume non-AMD vendor implies Intel. Second, improve kselftest common > >> parts and resctrl selftest such that the use of __cpuid_count() does > >> not lead into a build failure (happens at least on ARM). > >> > >> The last patch might still require some work on which symbol the > >> conditional in kselftest.h is implemented. I could not find any > >> pre-existing one that could be used. Perhaps somebody who's more > >> familiar with the kselftest build system has a better suggestion on > >> which symbol the logic should be based at? > >> > >> Ilpo Järvinen (3): > >> selftests/resctrl: Generalize non-contiguous CAT check > >> selftests/resctrl: Always initialize ecx to avoid build warnings > >> [RFC] kselftest: Provide __cpuid_count() stub on non-x86 archs > >> > >> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 6 +++++ > >> tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 4 ++++ > >> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------- > >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > > > > These changes look good to me. Can you send the RFC patch without the > > RFC tag > > for me to pull in? I don't apply RFC patches. > > > > Usama, does this fix the problem you are seeing? > > Yeah, build errors are resolved. Great, thanks for testing! I'll send v2 with RFC removed soon. > > Hi Reinette - do these look okay to you? Can you give me an ack if they do? > > > > thanks, > > -- Shuah > > >