subject:"\[PATCH v3 2\/6\] atomics\: Add test for atomic operations with

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:02:00AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Fengguang,
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > > 
> > > The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> > > 
> > > - subjects
> > > - touched files
> > > - TO/CC list
> > > 
> > > Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> > > so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> > > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> > > in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:
> > 
> > [PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...
> > 
> > also works?
> 
> Yes it will work -- that'd be the most strong hint.
> 

Great! I will use that hint in the future, thank you ;-)

> > BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> > patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.
> 
> Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
> build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
> git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
> patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.
> 

Thank you, so I'm not going to resend this v3 patchset, will use the
subject hint for any future patchset ;-)

Regards,
Boqun



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

> > BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> > patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.
> 
> Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
> build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
> git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
> patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.

Ah yes, there is a silly bug.. Fixed, 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] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Fengguang,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> > 
> > - subjects
> > - touched files
> > - TO/CC list
> > 
> > Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> > so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> > in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:
> 
> [PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...
> 
> also works?

Yes it will work -- that'd be the most strong hint.

> BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.

Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
> > "lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
> > "arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]
> > 
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
> > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", 
> > "Ingo Molnar "
> > , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
> > ", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas 
> > Gleixner  > e>", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
> > ", "Waiman Long ", 
> > "Davidlohr Bueso "
> > , "Boqun Feng "]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
> > "powerpc/next", "mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", 
> > "arm64/for-next/core"]
> > 
> > The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
> > itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Boqun,
> > > > 
> > > > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, 
> > > > please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> > > tree. Thank you.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > > 
> > > > url:
> > > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > > > reproduce:
> > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > > > 
> > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > 
> > > >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > > > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> > > >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > > ^
> > > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > > 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > > ^
> > > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > > 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > >  ^
> > > >lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > >  test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

Hi Fengguang,

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Boqun,
> 
> The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> 
> - subjects
> - touched files
> - TO/CC list
> 
> Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> 

Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:

[PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...

also works?

BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.

Regards,
Boqun

> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
> "lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
> "arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]
> 
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
> "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", 
> "Ingo Molnar "
> , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
> ", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas 
> Gleixner  e>", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
> ", "Waiman Long ", "Davidlohr 
> Bueso "
> , "Boqun Feng "]
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
> "mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", "arm64/for-next/core"]
> 
> The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
> itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > > 
> > > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, please 
> > > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > 
> > 
> > This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> > tree. Thank you.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > url:
> > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > > reproduce:
> > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > > 
> > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > 
> > >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> > >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > ^
> > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > 'unlikely'
> > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > ^
> > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > 'unlikely'
> > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > >  ^
> > >lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > >  test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_relaxed' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > ^
> > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > 'unlikely'
> > > # define

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

Hi Boqun,

The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's

- subjects
- touched files
- TO/CC list

Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
"linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.

[2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
"lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
"arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
[2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]

[2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
"linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", "Ingo 
Molnar "
, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas Gleixner 
", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
", "Waiman Long ", "Davidlohr 
Bueso "
, "Boqun Feng "]
[2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
"mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", "arm64/for-next/core"]

The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.

Thanks,
Fengguang

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, please 
> > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > 
> 
> This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> tree. Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > reproduce:
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > 
> > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> >lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_relaxed' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> >lib/atomic64_test.c:40:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args); \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > >>

[PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

Some atomic operations now have _{relaxed, acquire, release} variants,
this patch then adds some trivial tests for two purpose:

1.  test the behavior of these new operations in single-CPU
environment.
2.  make their code generated before we actually use them somewhere,
so that we can examine their assembly code.

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng 
---
 lib/atomic64_test.c | 120 ++--
 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/atomic64_test.c b/lib/atomic64_test.c
index 83c33a5b..18e422b 100644
--- a/lib/atomic64_test.c
+++ b/lib/atomic64_test.c
@@ -27,6 +27,65 @@ do { 
\
(unsigned long long)r); \
 } while (0)
 
+/*
+ * Test for a atomic operation family,
+ * @test should be a macro accepting parameters (bit, op, ...)
+ */
+
+#define FAMILY_TEST(test, bit, op, args...)\
+do {   \
+   test(bit, op, ##args);  \
+   test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args);\
+   test(bit, op##_release, ##args);\
+   test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define TEST_RETURN(bit, op, c_op, val)\
+do {   \
+   atomic##bit##_set(, v0);  \
+   r = v0; \
+   r c_op val; \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(val, ) != r);   \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read() != r);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, op, c_op, val) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_RETURN, bit, op, c_op, val);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define TEST_ARGS(bit, op, init, ret, expect, args...) \
+do {   \
+   atomic##bit##_set(, init);\
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read() != expect);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new)   \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, xchg, init, init, new, new);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new, wrong) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg,\
+   init, init, new, init, new);\
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg,\
+   init, init, init, wrong, new);  \
+} while (0)
+
+#define INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
+   i, (i) + one, (i) + one);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, dec_return, \
+   i, (i) - one, (i) - one);   \
+} while (0)
+
 static __init void test_atomic(void)
 {
int v0 = 0xaaa31337;
@@ -45,6 +104,18 @@ static __init void test_atomic(void)
TEST(, and, &=, v1);
TEST(, xor, ^=, v1);
TEST(, andnot, &= ~, v1);
+
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, -one);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, -one);
+
+   INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
+   DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
+
+   XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1);
+   CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1, onestwos);
+
 }
 
 #define INIT(c) do { atomic64_set(, c); r = c; } while (0)
@@ -74,25 +145,10 @@ static __init void test_atomic64(void)
TEST(64, xor, ^=, v1);
TEST(64, andnot, &= ~, v1);
 
-   INIT(v0);
-   r += onestwos;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_add_return(onestwos, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r += -one;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_add_return(-one, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r -= onestwos;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_sub_return(onestwos, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r -= -one;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_sub_return(-one, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, add_return, +=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, add_return, +=, -one);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, sub_return, -=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, sub_return, -=, -one);
 
INIT(v0);

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Fengguang,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> > 
> > - subjects
> > - touched files
> > - TO/CC list
> > 
> > Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> > so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> > in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:
> 
> [PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...
> 
> also works?

Yes it will work -- that'd be the most strong hint.

> BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.

Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
> > "lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
> > "arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]
> > 
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
> > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", 
> > "Ingo Molnar "
> > , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
> > ", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas 
> > Gleixner  > e>", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
> > ", "Waiman Long ", 
> > "Davidlohr Bueso "
> > , "Boqun Feng "]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
> > "powerpc/next", "mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", 
> > "arm64/for-next/core"]
> > 
> > The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
> > itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Boqun,
> > > > 
> > > > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, 
> > > > please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> > > tree. Thank you.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > > 
> > > > url:
> > > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > > > reproduce:
> > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > > > 
> > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > 
> > > >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > > > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> > > >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > > ^
> > > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > > 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > > ^
> > > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > > 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > >  ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > >

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

Hi Boqun,

The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's

- subjects
- touched files
- TO/CC list

Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
"linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.

[2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
"lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
"arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
[2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]

[2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
"linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", "Ingo 
Molnar "
, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas Gleixner 
", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
", "Waiman Long ", "Davidlohr 
Bueso "
, "Boqun Feng "]
[2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
"mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", "arm64/for-next/core"]

The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.

Thanks,
Fengguang

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, please 
> > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > 
> 
> This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> tree. Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > reproduce:
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > 
> > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> >lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > >> 'atomic_inc_return_relaxed' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > ^
> >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >  ^
> > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> >  ^
> >lib/atomic64_test.c:40:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> >  test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args);

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

Hi Fengguang,

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Boqun,
> 
> The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> 
> - subjects
> - touched files
> - TO/CC list
> 
> Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> 

Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:

[PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...

also works?

BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.

Regards,
Boqun

> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", 
> "lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", 
> "arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]
> 
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org", 
> "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org", "Peter Zijlstra ", 
> "Ingo Molnar "
> , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt ", "Paul Mackerras 
> ", "Michael Ellerman ", "Thomas 
> Gleixner  e>", "Will Deacon ", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" 
> ", "Waiman Long ", "Davidlohr 
> Bueso "
> , "Boqun Feng "]
> [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", 
> "mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", "arm64/for-next/core"]
> 
> The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
> itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > > 
> > > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, please 
> > > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > 
> > 
> > This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> > tree. Thank you.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > url:
> > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > > reproduce:
> > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > make ARCH=x86_64 
> > > 
> > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > 
> > >In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> > >lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > ^
> > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > 'unlikely'
> > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > >  test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > > ^
> > >include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 
> > > 'unlikely'
> > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > >  BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
> > >  ^
> > >lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > >  test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return,  \
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> > > >> 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > >  INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > >  ^
> > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > >> 'atomic_inc_return_relaxed'

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Fengguang Wu

> > BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> > patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.
> 
> Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
> build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
> git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
> patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.

Ah yes, there is a silly bug.. Fixed, 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/

[PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

Some atomic operations now have _{relaxed, acquire, release} variants,
this patch then adds some trivial tests for two purpose:

1.  test the behavior of these new operations in single-CPU
environment.
2.  make their code generated before we actually use them somewhere,
so that we can examine their assembly code.

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng 
---
 lib/atomic64_test.c | 120 ++--
 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/atomic64_test.c b/lib/atomic64_test.c
index 83c33a5b..18e422b 100644
--- a/lib/atomic64_test.c
+++ b/lib/atomic64_test.c
@@ -27,6 +27,65 @@ do { 
\
(unsigned long long)r); \
 } while (0)
 
+/*
+ * Test for a atomic operation family,
+ * @test should be a macro accepting parameters (bit, op, ...)
+ */
+
+#define FAMILY_TEST(test, bit, op, args...)\
+do {   \
+   test(bit, op, ##args);  \
+   test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args);\
+   test(bit, op##_release, ##args);\
+   test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define TEST_RETURN(bit, op, c_op, val)\
+do {   \
+   atomic##bit##_set(, v0);  \
+   r = v0; \
+   r c_op val; \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(val, ) != r);   \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read() != r);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, op, c_op, val) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_RETURN, bit, op, c_op, val);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define TEST_ARGS(bit, op, init, ret, expect, args...) \
+do {   \
+   atomic##bit##_set(, init);\
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(, ##args) != ret);  \
+   BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read() != expect);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new)   \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, xchg, init, init, new, new);\
+} while (0)
+
+#define CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new, wrong) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg,\
+   init, init, new, init, new);\
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg,\
+   init, init, init, wrong, new);  \
+} while (0)
+
+#define INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
+   i, (i) + one, (i) + one);   \
+} while (0)
+
+#define DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
+do {   \
+   FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, dec_return, \
+   i, (i) - one, (i) - one);   \
+} while (0)
+
 static __init void test_atomic(void)
 {
int v0 = 0xaaa31337;
@@ -45,6 +104,18 @@ static __init void test_atomic(void)
TEST(, and, &=, v1);
TEST(, xor, ^=, v1);
TEST(, andnot, &= ~, v1);
+
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, -one);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, -one);
+
+   INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
+   DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
+
+   XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1);
+   CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1, onestwos);
+
 }
 
 #define INIT(c) do { atomic64_set(, c); r = c; } while (0)
@@ -74,25 +145,10 @@ static __init void test_atomic64(void)
TEST(64, xor, ^=, v1);
TEST(64, andnot, &= ~, v1);
 
-   INIT(v0);
-   r += onestwos;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_add_return(onestwos, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r += -one;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_add_return(-one, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r -= onestwos;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_sub_return(onestwos, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
-
-   INIT(v0);
-   r -= -one;
-   BUG_ON(atomic64_sub_return(-one, ) != r);
-   BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, add_return, +=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, add_return, +=, -one);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, sub_return, -=, onestwos);
+   RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(64, sub_return, -=, -one);

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

2015-10-12 Thread Boqun Feng

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:02:00AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Fengguang,
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > > 
> > > The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> > > 
> > > - subjects
> > > - touched files
> > > - TO/CC list
> > > 
> > > Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> > > so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> > > "linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> > > in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:
> > 
> > [PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...
> > 
> > also works?
> 
> Yes it will work -- that'd be the most strong hint.
> 

Great! I will use that hint in the future, thank you ;-)

> > BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> > patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.
> 
> Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
> build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
> git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
> patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.
> 

Thank you, so I'm not going to resend this v3 patchset, will use the
subject hint for any future patchset ;-)

Regards,
Boqun



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

[PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

[PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

12 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information