From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 2655 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2020 15:52:56 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Nov 2020 15:52:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 30654 invoked by uid 550); 17 Nov 2020 15:52:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 30630 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2020 15:52:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:52:42 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20201117155241.GZ534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20201117040951.GA9668@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20201117065212.GA12665@APC301.andestech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201117065212.GA12665@APC301.andestech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] 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