[OS-BUILD PATCH] [redhat] spec: Add %bcond_with clang option
by Tom Stellard (via Email Bridge)
From: Tom Stellard <tstellar(a)redhat.com>
[redhat] spec: Add %bcond_with clang option
diff a/redhat/kernel.spec.template b/redhat/kernel.spec.template
--- a/redhat/kernel.spec.template
+++ b/redhat/kernel.spec.template
@@ -6,6 +6,12 @@
# Disable LTO in userspace packages.
%global _lto_cflags %{nil}
+# Option to enable compiling with clang instead of gcc.
+%bcond_with toolchain_clang
+
+%if %{with toolchain_clang}
+%global toolchain clang
+%endif
# Cross compile on copr for arm
# See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1879599
@@ -228,6 +234,10 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
%define make_opts -s
%endif
+%if %{with toolchain_clang}
+%global make_opts %{make_opts} HOSTCC=clang CC=clang
+%endif
+
# turn off debug kernel and kabichk for gcov builds
%if %{with_gcov}
%define with_debug 0
@@ -432,6 +442,14 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
%define with_configchecks 0
%endif
+# Setting the compiler to clang enables some different config options
+# than what is expected, so disable this check for now.
+# TODO: What's the best way to fix this? Do wee need a different set of
+# configs for clang?
+%if %{with toolchain_clang}
+%define with_configchecks 0
+%endif
+
# To temporarily exclude an architecture from being built, add it to
# %%nobuildarches. Do _NOT_ use the ExclusiveArch: line, because if we
# don't build kernel-headers then the new build system will no longer let
@@ -596,6 +614,10 @@ BuildRequires: xmlto
BuildRequires: asciidoc
%endif
+%if %{with toolchain_clang}
+BuildRequires: clang
+%endif
+
# Because this is the kernel, it's hard to get a single upstream URL
# to represent the base without needing to do a bunch of patching. This
# tarball is generated from a src-git tree. If you want to see the
--
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/894
3 years, 2 months
✅ PASS: Test report for kernel 5.10.17-200.fc33 (fedora-33)
by CKI Project
Hello,
We ran automated tests on the following kernel build:
Kernel package: kernel-5.10.17-200.fc33
Task URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62181060
The results of these automated tests are provided below.
Overall result: PASSED
Tests: OK
All kernel binaries, config files, and logs are available for download here:
https://arr-cki-prod-datawarehouse-public.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?pre...
Please reply to this email if you have any questions about the tests that we
ran or if you have any suggestions on how to make future tests more effective.
For the full detail on our testing procedures, please scroll to the bottom of
this message.
,-. ,-.
( C ) ( K ) Continuous
`-',-.`-' Kernel
( I ) Integration
`-'
______________________________________________________________________________
Hardware testing
----------------
We booted each kernel and ran the following tests:
aarch64:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ xfstests - ext4
🚧 ✅ xfstests - xfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - btrfs
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage block - filesystem fio test
🚧 ✅ Storage block - queue scheduler test
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
🚧 ✅ stress: stress-ng
Host 2:
✅ Boot test
✅ ACPI table test
✅ LTP
✅ Loopdev Sanity
✅ Memory: fork_mem
✅ Memory function: memfd_create
✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
🚧 ✅ CIFS Connectathon
🚧 ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity
ppc64le:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ xfstests - ext4
🚧 ✅ xfstests - xfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - btrfs
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage block - filesystem fio test
🚧 ✅ Storage block - queue scheduler test
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
Host 2:
✅ Boot test
✅ LTP
✅ Loopdev Sanity
✅ Memory: fork_mem
✅ Memory function: memfd_create
✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
🚧 ✅ CIFS Connectathon
🚧 ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity
s390x:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
🚧 ✅ stress: stress-ng
Host 2:
✅ Boot test
✅ LTP
✅ Loopdev Sanity
✅ Memory: fork_mem
✅ Memory function: memfd_create
✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
🚧 ✅ CIFS Connectathon
🚧 ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity
x86_64:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
✅ ACPI table test
✅ LTP
✅ Loopdev Sanity
✅ Memory: fork_mem
✅ Memory function: memfd_create
✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
🚧 ✅ CIFS Connectathon
🚧 ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity
Host 2:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ xfstests - ext4
🚧 ✅ xfstests - xfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - btrfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - nfsv4.2
🚧 ✅ xfstests - cifsv3.11
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage block - filesystem fio test
🚧 ✅ Storage block - queue scheduler test
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
🚧 ✅ stress: stress-ng
Test sources: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-tests
💚 Pull requests are welcome for new tests or improvements to existing tests!
Aborted tests
-------------
Tests that didn't complete running successfully are marked with ⚡⚡⚡.
If this was caused by an infrastructure issue, we try to mark that
explicitly in the report.
Waived tests
------------
If the test run included waived tests, they are marked with 🚧. Such tests are
executed but their results are not taken into account. Tests are waived when
their results are not reliable enough, e.g. when they're just introduced or are
being fixed.
Testing timeout
---------------
We aim to provide a report within reasonable timeframe. Tests that haven't
finished running yet are marked with ⏱.
3 years, 2 months
Fedora and 5.11 kernels
by Justin Forbes
With the 5.11 kernel series, I will be moving Fedora stable releases
to use the ark process. The branch fedora-5.11 has been pushed. The
fedora-5.11 tree is a rebase of os-build onto the linux-5.11.y stable
tree. RHEL specific patches around KABI and support are dropped to
remain closer to upstream, similar to what Fedora has been using in
stable releases for a while now. The initial tree was a rebase, but
stable linux-5.11.y updates will be merged. While this is a proper
working tree, none of the scripts to create a release are working
quite as they should be. I will be getting those fixed up this week,
but living in Texas, I only get power in very small bursts which could
drop at any time this week. I wanted to get the tree out though, so
people can do merge requests for patches or config changes that may be
needed.
Given the Pacific northwest is also going through power issues, Linus
hasn't even started merging for 5.12 yet, so perhaps will will have
some time before 5.11.1 comes out.
With this process, all changes should be made into the fedora-5.11
tree at https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/tree/fedora-5.11,
and that will be used to build dist-git. As Fedora 34 is tracking
5.11 until release, I will not be pushing updates to stabilization,
but will use F34 to build test kernels against F33 for test week.
Thanks,
Justin
3 years, 2 months
Re: Kernel version plans for Fedora 34 ?
by Bastien Nocera
On Fri, 2021-02-12 at 14:07 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:23 -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:01 PM Bastien Nocera <hadess(a)hadess.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 19:32 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > So where do I submit these once backported ? Do I just add
> > > > them
> > > > to
> > > > dist-git
> > > > as before ? AFAIK 5.11 will be the first kernel-ark based
> > > > Fedora
> > > > kernel
> > > > (at least 5.10 dist-git does not look ark based), right ?
> > >
> > > I recently wanted to do that for a Bluetooth patch, and this is
> > > how
> > > I
> > > went about it, along with discussions that happened on the list:
> > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/872
> > >
> > > I don't know whether I would have needed to proceed to get this
> > > particular patch into stable releases, like Fedora 33 though.
> > >
> >
> > The Fedora stable branches are a bit different, in that they do not
> > copy over to ELN, so it is a much less formal process. Basically
> > either I take it or I don't. And that is typically determined by a)
> > What is the upstream status? b) How invasive is the backport? c)
> > What
> > is it trying to solve?
>
> Coming back to the merge request I filed, I think that all 3 of those
> questions are answered.
>
> Do I need to do anything else? A separate merge request?
Justin, can you please explain what's needed to land upstream patches
into stable versions of Fedora, with the above patch as an example?
The merge request I filed against what will be the rawhide kernel has
all the 3 bits of information you requested. Is something missing?
How do we need to contribute the upstream changes to make it as easy as
possible for you, so those patches get into stable kernels quickly?
Cheers
3 years, 2 months
[INFO] Email bridge spam reduction
by Don Zickus
Hi,
A couple of us have been fixing bug in the email bridge in the last week.
Most changes won't be noticed. However, one notable exception is 'bot spam'
filtering.
The email bridge will no longer send emails from the various bots about
webhook or other admin things. As a submitter of the MR you will continue
to get notifications.
I doubt anyone will care other than, less email on this list \o/.
Cheers,
Don
3 years, 2 months
[OS-BUILD PATCH 0/5] RHMAINTAINERS: updates for Feb 11 2021
by Prarit Bhargava (via Email Bridge)
From: Prarit Bhargava on gitlab.com
Merge Request: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/893
Add kheib entries for various sections.
Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit(a)redhat.com>
Changes:
21801ca03a97 (Kamal Heib)
RHMAINTAINERS: Add entry for the rdma_rxe driver
d2ff594249bf (Kamal Heib)
RHMAINTAINERS: Add entry for the siw driver
98326c1af45b (Kamal Heib)
RHMAINTAINERS: Add entry for the vmw_pvrdma driver
1fce133ec54b (Kamal Heib)
RHMAINTAINERS: Add entry for the efa driver
326ac612ba3b (Kamal Heib)
RHMAINTAINERS: Add entry for the bnxt_re driver
redhat/rhdocs/MAINTAINERS/RHMAINTAINERS | 30
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
3 years, 2 months
✅ PASS: Test report for kernel 5.10.16-200.fc33 (fedora-33)
by CKI Project
Hello,
We ran automated tests on the following kernel build:
Kernel package: kernel-5.10.16-200.fc33
Task URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61896538
The results of these automated tests are provided below.
Overall result: PASSED
Tests: OK
All kernel binaries, config files, and logs are available for download here:
https://arr-cki-prod-datawarehouse-public.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?pre...
Please reply to this email if you have any questions about the tests that we
ran or if you have any suggestions on how to make future tests more effective.
For the full detail on our testing procedures, please scroll to the bottom of
this message.
,-. ,-.
( C ) ( K ) Continuous
`-',-.`-' Kernel
( I ) Integration
`-'
______________________________________________________________________________
Hardware testing
----------------
We booted each kernel and ran the following tests:
aarch64:
Host 1:
⏱ Boot test
⏱ xfstests - ext4
⏱ xfstests - xfs
⏱ xfstests - btrfs
⏱ Storage blktests
⏱ Storage block - filesystem fio test
⏱ Storage block - queue scheduler test
⏱ Storage nvme - tcp
⏱ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
⏱ stress: stress-ng
Host 2:
⏱ Boot test
⏱ ACPI table test
⏱ LTP
⏱ Loopdev Sanity
⏱ Memory: fork_mem
⏱ Memory function: memfd_create
⏱ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
⏱ CIFS Connectathon
⏱ Ethernet drivers sanity
ppc64le:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
✅ LTP
✅ Loopdev Sanity
✅ Memory: fork_mem
✅ Memory function: memfd_create
✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
🚧 ✅ CIFS Connectathon
🚧 ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity
Host 2:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ xfstests - ext4
🚧 ✅ xfstests - xfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - btrfs
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage block - filesystem fio test
🚧 ✅ Storage block - queue scheduler test
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
s390x:
Host 1:
⏱ Boot test
⏱ Storage blktests
⏱ Storage nvme - tcp
⏱ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
⏱ stress: stress-ng
Host 2:
⏱ Boot test
⏱ LTP
⏱ Loopdev Sanity
⏱ Memory: fork_mem
⏱ Memory function: memfd_create
⏱ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
⏱ CIFS Connectathon
⏱ Ethernet drivers sanity
x86_64:
Host 1:
✅ Boot test
🚧 ✅ xfstests - ext4
🚧 ✅ xfstests - xfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - btrfs
🚧 ✅ xfstests - nfsv4.2
🚧 ✅ xfstests - cifsv3.11
🚧 ✅ Storage blktests
🚧 ✅ Storage block - filesystem fio test
🚧 ✅ Storage block - queue scheduler test
🚧 ✅ Storage nvme - tcp
🚧 ✅ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test
🚧 ✅ stress: stress-ng
Host 2:
⏱ Boot test
⏱ ACPI table test
⏱ LTP
⏱ Loopdev Sanity
⏱ Memory: fork_mem
⏱ Memory function: memfd_create
⏱ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility)
⏱ CIFS Connectathon
⏱ Ethernet drivers sanity
Test sources: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-tests
💚 Pull requests are welcome for new tests or improvements to existing tests!
Aborted tests
-------------
Tests that didn't complete running successfully are marked with ⚡⚡⚡.
If this was caused by an infrastructure issue, we try to mark that
explicitly in the report.
Waived tests
------------
If the test run included waived tests, they are marked with 🚧. Such tests are
executed but their results are not taken into account. Tests are waived when
their results are not reliable enough, e.g. when they're just introduced or are
being fixed.
Testing timeout
---------------
We aim to provide a report within reasonable timeframe. Tests that haven't
finished running yet are marked with ⏱.
3 years, 2 months
Kernel version plans for Fedora 34 ?
by Hans de Goede
Hi,
I was wondering with which kernel version we are planning to ship Fedora 34 gold ?
I expect 5.12 final to be released on April 19th, which puts it just past the
F34 final freeze. So I was wondering if we are going to stick with 5.11, or
since things are close, do the 5.12-rc7 to final bump during the freeze?
The reason I'm asking is that the 5.12 kernel has the kernel interfaces which
power-profile-daemon:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Design/settings-mockups/-/blob/master/powe...
http://www.hadess.net/2020/09/power-profiles-daemon-new-project.html
Will use to set the performance (aka platform) profile on for example
ThinkPad laptops.
So if we are going to ship with 5.12, then everything will be great,
but if we are going to go with 5.11, then I should probably backport
the necessary bits to the Fedora 5.11 kernels (the patches are not that
big, it just took a while for everyone to agree on the userspace API).
So, what kernel-version are we planning on shipping F34 gold with?
Regards,
Hans
3 years, 2 months