[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 John Feeney changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jfee...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(spen...@nvidia.co ||m) --- Comment #18 from John Feeney --- Spencer, Can you confirm so we can get this moved on. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(mschmidt@redhat.c | |om) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(spen...@nvidia.co ||m) --- Comment #17 from Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #16) > Got it. As the SPEC and SRPM URLs are no longer valid, please update the > URLs. Seems like they are at https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01469069-mlxbf-bootctl/ Spencer, can you confirm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #16 from Honggang LI --- Got it. As the SPEC and SRPM URLs are no longer valid, please update the URLs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ahleihel@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #15 from Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #14) > (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) from comment #13) > > Hi, > > > > What is the status of adding this package to Fedora? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139#c3 > > It seems the firmware will be rejected. Is it still necessary to package up > this tool for Fedora? Hi, Honggang. It's not clear yet how the FW images in BZ #1846139 will be shipped. But regardless, I think that this package should still be added to Fedora, it provide other functionalities for managing the boot partitions and features. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Honggang LI changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ho...@redhat.com) |needinfo?(ahleihel@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #14 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) from comment #13) > Hi, > > What is the status of adding this package to Fedora? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139#c3 It seems the firmware will be rejected. Is it still necessary to package up this tool for Fedora? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ho...@redhat.com) --- Comment #13 from Alaa Hleihel (NVIDIA Mellanox) --- Hi, What is the status of adding this package to Fedora? Thanks, Alaa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Spencer Lingard changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1853081 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853081 [Bug 1853081] Review Request: mlxbf-bfscripts - Helper scripts for Mellanox BlueField systems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #12 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Spencer Lingard from comment #10) > Ok, done. I see the message > > "annobin: mlxbf-bootctl.c: ICE: Should be 64-bit target" > > when I build with these flags. Is this expected? That's OK. I did not see such message when I built it with mock fedora-rawhide configuration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452
--- Comment #11 from Honggang LI ---
1 Package Review
2 ==
3
4 Legend:
5 [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
6 [ ] = Manual review needed
7
8
9
10 = MUST items =
11
12 C/C++:
13 [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
PASS
14 [ ]: Package contains no static executables.
PASS
15 [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
16 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
17 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
18 [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
19
20 Generic:
21 [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets
22 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging
23 Guidelines.
PASS
24 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
25 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
26 found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or
generated",
27 "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 11 files have unknown
28 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/test/1835452-mlxbf-
29 bootctl/licensecheck.txt
PASS
30 [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
PASS
31 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
PASS
32 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
PASS
33 [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
PASS
34 [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
PASS
35 [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
PASS
36 [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
PASS
37 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS
38 [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
39 names).
PASS
40 [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
PASS
41 [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
PASS
42 [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
PASS
43 [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes
and
44 Provides are present.
PASS
45 [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
PASS
46 [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
PASS
47 [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
PASS
48 [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
PASS
49 [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
PASS. It is aarch64 specific package.
50 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be
size
51 (~1MB) or number of files.
52 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
PASS
53 [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
PASS
54 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least
55 one supported primary architecture.
56 [x]: Package installs properly.
57 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
58 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
59 [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
60 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the
61 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
62 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
63 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
64 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
65 [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
66 [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
the
67 beginning of %install.
68 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
69 [x]: Dist tag is present.
70 [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
71 [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
72 [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
73 [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't
74 work.
75 [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
76 [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
77 [x]: Package is not relocatable.
78 [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
79 provided in the spec URL.
80 [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
81 %{name}.spec.
82 [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
83 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
84
85 = SHOULD items =
86
87 Generic:
88 [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate
89 file
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #10 from Spencer Lingard --- New version. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01496412-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01496412-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-6.fc33.src.rpm Scratch Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46001191 (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #8) > (In reply to Spencer Lingard from comment #6) > > Spec URL: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/ > > fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01476093-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl.spec > > 27 %build > 28 %make_build > > Need to setup the CFLAGS. Please insert %set_build_flags between line 27 and > 28. see > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/ > buildflags.md > Ok, done. I see the message "annobin: mlxbf-bootctl.c: ICE: Should be 64-bit target" when I build with these flags. Is this expected? The binaries appear to run fine. (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #9) > I ran some tests, it seems OK: > > > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# rpm -qf `which mlxbf-bootctl` > mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-5.el8.aarch64 > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl --help > syntax: mlxbf-bootctl [--help|-h] [--swap|-s] [--device|-d MMCFILE] > [--output|-o OUTPUT] [--read|-r INPUT] > [--bootstream|-b BFBFILE] [--overwrite-current] > [--watchdog-swap interval | --nowatchdog-swap] > > > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# modprobe -rv mlxbf_bootctl > rmmod mlxbf_bootctl > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl > primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 > backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 > boot-bus-width: x8 > reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE > post_reset_wdog: No such file or directory > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# echo $? > 1 > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# modprobe -v mlxbf_bootctl > insmod > /lib/modules/4.18.0-215.el8.aarch64/kernel/drivers/platform/mellanox/mlxbf- > bootctl.ko.xz > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl > primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 > backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 > boot-bus-width: x8 > reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE > watchdog-swap: disabled > lifecycle state: GA Non-Secured > secure boot key free slots: 4 > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# echo $? > 0 > [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# For completeness I added a message that warns if you don't have the mlxbf_bootctl driver loaded, rather than printing "No such file or directory". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #9 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- I ran some tests, it seems OK: [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# rpm -qf `which mlxbf-bootctl` mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-5.el8.aarch64 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl --help syntax: mlxbf-bootctl [--help|-h] [--swap|-s] [--device|-d MMCFILE] [--output|-o OUTPUT] [--read|-r INPUT] [--bootstream|-b BFBFILE] [--overwrite-current] [--watchdog-swap interval | --nowatchdog-swap] [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# modprobe -rv mlxbf_bootctl rmmod mlxbf_bootctl [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 boot-bus-width: x8 reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE post_reset_wdog: No such file or directory [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# echo $? 1 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# modprobe -v mlxbf_bootctl insmod /lib/modules/4.18.0-215.el8.aarch64/kernel/drivers/platform/mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl.ko.xz [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 boot-bus-width: x8 reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE watchdog-swap: disabled lifecycle state: GA Non-Secured secure boot key free slots: 4 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# echo $? 0 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# Reading and writing boot partitions: [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl -r /dev/mmcblk0boot0 -b boot0.bfb Copy bootstream from /dev/mmcblk0boot0 to boot0.bfb [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# ls -lh boot0.bfb -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2.1M Jun 18 10:49 boot0.bfb [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl -r /dev/mmcblk0boot1 -b boot1.bfb Copy bootstream from /dev/mmcblk0boot1 to boot1.bfb [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# ls -lh boot1.bfb -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1.6M Jun 18 10:59 boot1.bfb [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl --bootstream boot0.bfb --swap --watchdog-swap 60 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# reboot enable disable watchdog-swap: [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 boot-bus-width: x8 reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE watchdog-swap: disabled lifecycle state: GA Non-Secured secure boot key free slots: 4 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl --watchdog-swap 60 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 boot-bus-width: x8 reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE watchdog-swap: 60 lifecycle state: GA Non-Secured secure boot key free slots: 4 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl --nowatchdog-swap [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# mlxbf-bootctl primary: /dev/mmcblk0boot1 backup: /dev/mmcblk0boot0 boot-bus-width: x8 reset to x1 after reboot: FALSE watchdog-swap: disabled lifecycle state: GA Non-Secured secure boot key free slots: 4 [root@dhcp19-243-132 ~]# -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Honggang LI changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Honggang LI changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mschmidt@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Spencer Lingard from comment #6) > Spec URL: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/ > fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01476093-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl.spec 27 %build 28 %make_build Need to setup the CFLAGS. Please insert %set_build_flags between line 27 and 28. see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5292/45835292/build.log + cd mlxbf-bootctl-1.1 + /usr/bin/make -O -j5 V=1 VERBOSE=1 cc -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -Werror -Wall -Wshadow -Wuninitialized -Wstrict-overflow -Wundef -Wold-style-definition -Wwrite-strings -MD -MP -c -o mlxbf-bootctl.o mlxbf-bootctl.c cc -Wl,--fatal-warnings -o mlxbf-bootctl mlxbf-bootctl.o @Michal Could you please have a look? I'm almost OK with the spec file. I had checked 'fedora-review' result for this request. It looks almost good. If you are OK with the spec file. I will set the 'fedora-review+' flag, and post the fedora-review result.txt. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #7 from Honggang LI --- Confirmed all issues found by Coverity had been fixed in https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01476093-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-5.fc33.src.rpm . Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452
Spencer Lingard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(spencer@mellanox. |
|com)|
--- Comment #6 from Spencer Lingard ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01476093-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01476093-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-5.fc33.src.rpm
Scratch Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45835273
New version for review.
(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #2)
> 1Name: mlxbf-bootctl
> 2Version: 1.1
> 3%{!?_release: %define _release 4}
> 4Release: %{_release}%{?dist}
> Please delete line 3, and replace "%{_release}" with 4 for line 4.
Done.
>
> 5Summary: Mellanox BlueField boot partition management utility
> 6
> 7License: BSD
> 8Url: https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl
> 9Source: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1.tar.gz
> 10
> 11ExclusiveArch: aarch64
>
> Need a comment for "ExclusiveArch", see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Done.
>
> 12
> 13BuildRequires: binutils
> 14BuildRequires: gcc
>
> line 13 should be deleted, as gcc requires binutils.
>
> $ rpm -qR gcc | grep binutils
> binutils >= 2.31
Done.
>
> 15
> 16%description
> 17Access to all the boot partition management is via a program
> shipped
> 18with the BlueField software called "mlxbf-bootctl".
>
> I have no idea what is main function or feature of this package after read
> this
> '%description' section. Please improve it.
Done.
>
> 19
> 20%prep
> 21%setup -q -n mlxbf-bootctl-1.1
>
> "%setup -q" should be enough, in case
> 1) top directory name was in format "%{name}-%{version}/"
> 2) tarball name was in format "%{name}-%{version}.XXX"
This spec file is generated by rpkg
(https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl/blob/master/mlxbf-bootctl.spec.rpkg).
As far as I can tell, I can't change the way rpkg generates the %setup macro.
>
> 22
> 23%build
> 24%make_build
> 25
> 26%install
> 27%make_install
> 28%{__install} -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
> 29%{__install} -m 0644 mlxbf-bootctl.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
> 30
> 31%files
> 32%defattr(-, root, root)
> line 32 is unnecessary, please remove it.
Done.
>
> 33/sbin/*
> should install programs in %{_sbindir}, and use %{_sbindir}/XXX, XXX is the
> program name.
Done.
>
> 34%{_mandir}/man8/mlxbf-bootctl.8.gz
> 35
> 36%license LICENSE
> 37%doc mlxbf-bootctl.txt
> 38
> 39%changelog
> 40* Wed Jun 10 2020 Spencer Lingard 1.1-4
> 41(none)
> 42
> 43* Tue May 12 2020 Spencer Lingard 1.1-3
> 44(none)
>
> line 41 and 44 are unnecessary, should be deleted.
Changed them to be more detailed.
(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #3)
> Task URL: https://cov01.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/covscanhub/task/175416/
> Comment: None
>
>
> All defects
>
> CHECKED_RETURN1
> CLANG_WARNING 1
> CPPCHECK_WARNING 1
>
> ==
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-4.fc31
> List of Defects
>
> Error: CPPCHECK_WARNING (CWE-664): [#def1]
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:60: error[va_end_missing]: va_list 'ap'
> was opened but not closed by va_end().
> # 58| putc('\n', stderr);
> # 59| exit(1);
> # 60|-> }
> # 61|
> # 62| #ifndef OUTPUT_ONLY
Fixed.
>
> Error: CLANG_WARNING: [#def2]
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:545:5: warning: Null pointer passed to 1st
> parameter expecting 'nonnull'
> #memset(buf + seg_size, 0, pad_size);
> #^
This is a false positive. The tool assumes that (buf == NULL) at line 524, but
if buf == NULL, the program will die with an error message rather than
continuing. See the note below.
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:10: note: Assuming the condition is
> true
> # while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
> # ^~
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:3: note: Loop condition is true.
> Entering loop body
> # while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
> # ^
> mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:647:5:
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ahleihel@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #4) > Hi, Alaa > Do we have hardware to test this package? Thanks Hi, Honggang. Yes, we can use the existing BlueField card in the lab; the same one we used for reviewing the rshim package. Regards, Alaa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Honggang LI changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ahleihel@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Honggang LI --- Hi, Alaa Do we have hardware to test this package? Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452
--- Comment #3 from Honggang LI ---
Task URL: https://cov01.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/covscanhub/task/175416/
Comment: None
All defects
CHECKED_RETURN1
CLANG_WARNING 1
CPPCHECK_WARNING 1
==
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-4.fc31
List of Defects
Error: CPPCHECK_WARNING (CWE-664): [#def1]
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:60: error[va_end_missing]: va_list 'ap' was
opened but not closed by va_end().
# 58| putc('\n', stderr);
# 59| exit(1);
# 60|-> }
# 61|
# 62| #ifndef OUTPUT_ONLY
Error: CLANG_WARNING: [#def2]
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:545:5: warning: Null pointer passed to 1st
parameter expecting 'nonnull'
#memset(buf + seg_size, 0, pad_size);
#^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:10: note: Assuming the condition is true
# while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
# ^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:3: note: Loop condition is true.
Entering loop body
# while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:647:5: note: Control jumps to 'case 98:' at
line 663
#switch (opt)
#^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:665:7: note: Execution continues on line 644
# break;
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:10: note: Assuming the condition is false
# while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
# ^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:644:3: note: Loop condition is false.
Execution continues on line 694
# while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv, short_options, long_options, NULL))
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:694:7: note: Assuming 'bootstream' is
non-null
# if (!bootstream && !swap && watchdog_swap == NULL && !watchdog_disable)
# ^~~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:694:19: note: Left side of '&&' is false
# if (!bootstream && !swap && watchdog_swap == NULL && !watchdog_disable)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:700:7: note: 'bootstream' is non-null
# if (bootstream)
# ^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:700:3: note: Taking true branch
# if (bootstream)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:702:9: note: 'input_file' is null
#if (input_file)
#^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:702:5: note: Taking false branch
#if (input_file)
#^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:707:14: note: 'output_file' is null
#else if (output_file)
# ^~~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:707:10: note: Taking false branch
#else if (output_file)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:718:11: note: Assuming 'boot_part_size' is >=
field 'st_size'
# if (st.st_size > boot_part_size)
# ^~~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:718:7: note: Taking false branch
# if (st.st_size > boot_part_size)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:725:11: note: Assuming the condition is false
# if (asprintf(, "%sboot%d", mmc_path, boot_part ^ which_boot) <=
0)
#
^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:725:7: note: Taking false branch
# if (asprintf(, "%sboot%d", mmc_path, boot_part ^ which_boot) <=
0)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:728:7: note: Calling 'write_bootstream'
# write_bootstream(bootstream, bootfile, O_SYNC);
# ^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:475:3: note: Taking true branch
# if (strncmp(bootfile, "/dev/", 5) == 0)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:477:9: note: Assuming the condition is false
#if (asprintf(, "/sys/block/%s/force_ro", [5]) <= 0)
#^~~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:477:5: note: Taking false branch
#if (asprintf(, "/sys/block/%s/force_ro", [5]) <= 0)
#^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:481:9: note: Assuming 'sysfd' is < 0
#if (sysfd >= 0)
#^~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:481:5: note: Taking false branch
#if (sysfd >= 0)
#^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:503:11: note: Assuming the condition is false
# if (errno != ENOENT)
# ^~~
/usr/include/errno.h:38:16: note: expanded from macro 'errno'
## define errno (*__errno_location ())
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:503:7: note: Taking false branch
# if (errno != ENOENT)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:513:7: note: Assuming 'ifd' is < 0
# if (ifd < 0)
# ^~~
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:513:3: note: Taking true branch
# if (ifd < 0)
# ^
mlxbf-bootctl-1.1/mlxbf-bootctl.c:516:7: note: Assuming 'ofd' is >=
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1656147 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 Spencer Lingard changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Spencer Lingard --- New version for review. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01441117-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slingard/mlxbf-bootctl/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01441117-mlxbf-bootctl/mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-4.fc33.src.rpm Scratch Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45583728 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1835452] Review Request: mlxbf-bootctl - Bootloader control for Mellanox BlueField
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452
Honggang LI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(spencer@mellanox.
||com)
--- Comment #2 from Honggang LI ---
1 Name: mlxbf-bootctl
2 Version: 1.1
3 %{!?_release: %define _release 4}
4 Release: %{_release}%{?dist}
Please delete line 3, and replace "%{_release}" with 4 for line 4.
5 Summary: Mellanox BlueField boot partition management utility
6
7 License: BSD
8 Url: https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl
9 Source: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1.tar.gz
10
11 ExclusiveArch: aarch64
Need a comment for "ExclusiveArch", see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
12
13 BuildRequires: binutils
14 BuildRequires: gcc
line 13 should be deleted, as gcc requires binutils.
$ rpm -qR gcc | grep binutils
binutils >= 2.31
15
16 %description
17 Access to all the boot partition management is via a program shipped
18 with the BlueField software called "mlxbf-bootctl".
I have no idea what is main function or feature of this package after read this
'%description' section. Please improve it.
19
20 %prep
21 %setup -q -n mlxbf-bootctl-1.1
"%setup -q" should be enough, in case
1) top directory name was in format "%{name}-%{version}/"
2) tarball name was in format "%{name}-%{version}.XXX"
22
23 %build
24 %make_build
25
26 %install
27 %make_install
28 %{__install} -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
29 %{__install} -m 0644 mlxbf-bootctl.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
30
31 %files
32 %defattr(-, root, root)
line 32 is unnecessary, please remove it.
33 /sbin/*
should install programs in %{_sbindir}, and use %{_sbindir}/XXX, XXX is the
program name.
34 %{_mandir}/man8/mlxbf-bootctl.8.gz
35
36 %license LICENSE
37 %doc mlxbf-bootctl.txt
38
39 %changelog
40 * Wed Jun 10 2020 Spencer Lingard 1.1-4
41 (none)
42
43 * Tue May 12 2020 Spencer Lingard 1.1-3
44 (none)
line 41 and 44 are unnecessary, should be deleted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
