Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

Hi Sebastian,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:59:44PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
> > that's like to become stable over time.
> 
> finally. I got to it.
> I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git:
> 
>   for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0]
>   for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1]
> 
> Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for
> testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject).
> The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13)
> and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each
> commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce
> warnings or fail to compile.

Got it, I've updated the RT => for-kbuild-bot/current-stable mapping
accordingly, thanks for the info!

> The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I
> plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make
> sense or do I over think this?

It's fair enough.

> If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work.
> Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or
> desktop).

OK, I'll increase testing for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL when it's the RT tree.

> If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell
> me I will adapt to it:)
> 
> Thank you for the service.

You are welcome!

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

Hi Sebastian,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:59:44PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
> > that's like to become stable over time.
> 
> finally. I got to it.
> I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git:
> 
>   for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0]
>   for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1]
> 
> Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for
> testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject).
> The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13)
> and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each
> commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce
> warnings or fail to compile.

Got it, I've updated the RT => for-kbuild-bot/current-stable mapping
accordingly, thanks for the info!

> The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I
> plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make
> sense or do I over think this?

It's fair enough.

> If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work.
> Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or
> desktop).

OK, I'll increase testing for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL when it's the RT tree.

> If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell
> me I will adapt to it:)
> 
> Thank you for the service.

You are welcome!

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
> that's like to become stable over time.

finally. I got to it.
I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git:

for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0]
for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1]

Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for
testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject).
The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13)
and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each
commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce
warnings or fail to compile.
The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I
plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make
sense or do I over think this?
If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work.
Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or
desktop).
If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell
me I will adapt to it:)

Thank you for the service.

> Thanks,
> Fengguang

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
> that's like to become stable over time.

finally. I got to it.
I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git:

for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0]
for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1]

Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for
testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject).
The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13)
and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each
commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce
warnings or fail to compile.
The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I
plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make
sense or do I over think this?
If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work.
Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or
desktop).
If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell
me I will adapt to it:)

Thank you for the service.

> Thanks,
> Fengguang

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 03:14 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> 
> >> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> >> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.
> > 
> > Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> > linux-4.1.y-rt
> 
> I'm going to get you your kbot branch where you run bisect tests and
> everything and tests the patches against. The problem with this one is
> that we will drop it (or leave it stale) once we move to the next major
> kernel release.

Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
that's like to become stable over time.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:17:56AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:14:08 +0800
> Fengguang Wu  wrote:
> 
> > > Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> > > can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.  
> > 
> > Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> > linux-4.1.y-rt
> 
> Looks like a good of a branch as any.

OK. Added the [RT] mapping to that branch.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 11/23/2015 03:14 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:

>> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
>> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.
> 
> Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> linux-4.1.y-rt

I'm going to get you your kbot branch where you run bisect tests and
everything and tests the patches against. The problem with this one is
that we will drop it (or leave it stale) once we move to the next major
kernel release.

> Thanks,
> Fengguang

Sebastian

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:14:08 +0800
Fengguang Wu  wrote:

> > Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> > can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.  
> 
> Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> linux-4.1.y-rt

Looks like a good of a branch as any.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:43:25AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:30:30 +0800
> kbuild test robot  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jianchuan,
> > 
> > [auto build test ERROR on: v4.4-rc2]
> > [also build test ERROR on: next-20151120]
> > 
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/jianchuan-wang-windriver-com/locking_selftest-Save-restore-migrate_disable_atomic-in-locking-selftest/20151123-152217
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-x013-11230343 (attached as .config)
> > reproduce:
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > 
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >lib/locking-selftest.c: In function 'dotest':
> > >> lib/locking-selftest.c:981:25: error: 'struct task_struct' has no member 
> > >> named 'migrate_disable_atomic'  
> >  save_migrate_atomic = p->migrate_disable_atomic;
> > ^
> >lib/locking-selftest.c:987:3: error: 'struct task_struct' has no member 
> > named 'migrate_disable_atomic'
> >  p->migrate_disable_atomic = save_migrate_atomic;
> >   ^
> 
> 
> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.

Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
linux-4.1.y-rt

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:43:25AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:30:30 +0800
> kbuild test robot  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jianchuan,
> > 
> > [auto build test ERROR on: v4.4-rc2]
> > [also build test ERROR on: next-20151120]
> > 
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/jianchuan-wang-windriver-com/locking_selftest-Save-restore-migrate_disable_atomic-in-locking-selftest/20151123-152217
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-x013-11230343 (attached as .config)
> > reproduce:
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > 
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >lib/locking-selftest.c: In function 'dotest':
> > >> lib/locking-selftest.c:981:25: error: 'struct task_struct' has no member 
> > >> named 'migrate_disable_atomic'  
> >  save_migrate_atomic = p->migrate_disable_atomic;
> > ^
> >lib/locking-selftest.c:987:3: error: 'struct task_struct' has no member 
> > named 'migrate_disable_atomic'
> >  p->migrate_disable_atomic = save_migrate_atomic;
> >   ^
> 
> 
> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.

Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
linux-4.1.y-rt

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:14:08 +0800
Fengguang Wu  wrote:

> > Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> > can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.  
> 
> Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> linux-4.1.y-rt

Looks like a good of a branch as any.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 11/23/2015 03:14 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:

>> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
>> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.
> 
> Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> linux-4.1.y-rt

I'm going to get you your kbot branch where you run bisect tests and
everything and tests the patches against. The problem with this one is
that we will drop it (or leave it stale) once we move to the next major
kernel release.

> Thanks,
> Fengguang

Sebastian

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 03:14 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> 
> >> Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> >> can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.
> > 
> > Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> > linux-4.1.y-rt
> 
> I'm going to get you your kbot branch where you run bisect tests and
> everything and tests the patches against. The problem with this one is
> that we will drop it (or leave it stale) once we move to the next major
> kernel release.

Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt"
that's like to become stable over time.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest

[Fengguang Wu]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:17:56AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:14:08 +0800
> Fengguang Wu  wrote:
> 
> > > Need to add RT in the subject like "[PATCH RT]". Then perhaps Fengguang
> > > can have his tests either ignore these or test against the -rt trees.  
> > 
> > Yes sure. Shall I apply RT patches to this tree/branch?
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git 
> > linux-4.1.y-rt
> 
> Looks like a good of a branch as any.

OK. Added the [RT] mapping to that branch.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/