From: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>
To: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
kernel@collabora.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests, x86: fix how check_cc.sh is being invoked
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:49:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8e88488b-1666-ce1b-6d79-7c6758672ac0@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9320d88a3a65350d9bfdc5e258742cd0b162f017.1645794882.git.guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>
On 25/02/2022 13:15, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> Add quotes around $(CC) when calling check_cc.sh from a Makefile to
> pass the value as a single argument to the script even if it has
> several words such as "ccache gcc". Conversely, remove quotes in
> check_cc.sh when calling $CC to make it a command with potentially
> several arguments again.
>
> Fixes: e9886ace222e ("selftests, x86: Rework x86 target architecture detection")
> Tested-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 6 +++---
> tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile | 6 +++---
> tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_cc.sh | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> index 1607322a112c..d934f026ebb5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> @@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES += split_huge_page_test
> TEST_GEN_FILES += ksm_tests
>
> ifeq ($(MACHINE),x86_64)
> -CAN_BUILD_I386 := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh $(CC) ../x86/trivial_32bit_program.c -m32)
> -CAN_BUILD_X86_64 := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh $(CC) ../x86/trivial_64bit_program.c)
> -CAN_BUILD_WITH_NOPIE := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh $(CC) ../x86/trivial_program.c -no-pie)
> +CAN_BUILD_I386 := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh "$(CC)" ../x86/trivial_32bit_program.c -m32)
> +CAN_BUILD_X86_64 := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh "$(CC)" ../x86/trivial_64bit_program.c)
> +CAN_BUILD_WITH_NOPIE := $(shell ./../x86/check_cc.sh "$(CC)" ../x86/trivial_program.c -no-pie)
>
> TARGETS := protection_keys
> BINARIES_32 := $(TARGETS:%=%_32)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> index 8a1f62ab3c8e..53df7d3893d3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ include ../lib.mk
> .PHONY: all all_32 all_64 warn_32bit_failure clean
>
> UNAME_M := $(shell uname -m)
> -CAN_BUILD_I386 := $(shell ./check_cc.sh $(CC) trivial_32bit_program.c -m32)
> -CAN_BUILD_X86_64 := $(shell ./check_cc.sh $(CC) trivial_64bit_program.c)
> -CAN_BUILD_WITH_NOPIE := $(shell ./check_cc.sh $(CC) trivial_program.c -no-pie)
> +CAN_BUILD_I386 := $(shell ./check_cc.sh "$(CC)" trivial_32bit_program.c -m32)
> +CAN_BUILD_X86_64 := $(shell ./check_cc.sh "$(CC)" trivial_64bit_program.c)
> +CAN_BUILD_WITH_NOPIE := $(shell ./check_cc.sh "$(CC)" trivial_program.c -no-pie)
>
> TARGETS_C_BOTHBITS := single_step_syscall sysret_ss_attrs syscall_nt test_mremap_vdso \
> check_initial_reg_state sigreturn iopl ioperm \
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_cc.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_cc.sh
> index 3e2089c8cf54..aff2c15018b5 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_cc.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/check_cc.sh
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ CC="$1"
> TESTPROG="$2"
> shift 2
>
> -if "$CC" -o /dev/null "$TESTPROG" -O0 "$@" 2>/dev/null; then
> +if $CC -o /dev/null "$TESTPROG" -O0 "$@" 2>/dev/null; then
> echo 1
> else
> echo 0
I see the change in check_cc.sh is already covered by Usama's patch:
selftests/x86: Add validity check and allow field splitting
-if "$CC" -o /dev/null "$TESTPROG" -O0 "$@" 2>/dev/null; then
+if [ -n "$CC" ] && $CC -o /dev/null "$TESTPROG" -O0 "$@" 2>/dev/null; then
However, the rest of this patch in the Makefiles still needs to
be applied. Let me know if I should rebase it on top of Usama's.
Thanks,
Guillaume
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-25 23:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-25 13:15 Guillaume Tucker
2022-02-25 18:49 ` Guillaume Tucker [this message]
2022-02-25 21:38 ` David Laight
2022-02-26 1:03 ` Andrew Morton
2022-03-11 10:15 ` Guillaume Tucker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8e88488b-1666-ce1b-6d79-7c6758672ac0@collabora.com \
--to=guillaume.tucker@collabora.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox