[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117155241.GZ534@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:52:42 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl CI?
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 02:52:13PM +0800, Ruinland ChuanTzu Tsai wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Glad to know there are discussions about CI.
> Sorry that I couldn't find the IRC log and thus I might be saying some-
> thing which had already been disccussed.
>
> Though might be irrevalent, I'm wondering which platforms are the
> "golden standard" for such CI to run against for each musl supported
> architecture ?
>
> My rough hunch is something like : latest LTS Linux kernel
> (which is 5.4 for now) running on QEMU "virt machine" with full-system
> emulation or qemu-user ?
This is a really good question. I might lean towards newer (latest
stable) and older to catch breakage from use of newly added syscalls
or broken fallback on much older kernels.
> The reason why I prefer running testsuite under a fully-emulated Linux
> instead of qemu-user is that I don't have too much faith on its syscall
> -translation and signal-handling mechanism to work out perfectly when
> the guest and host architecture are heterogeneous.
> (This is just my prejudice, please correct me if I worry too much.)
Same. qemu-user is not really good as anything beyond a smoke test; it
has too many false positives and negatives from broken emulation.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
