<div dir="ltr"><div>>> Hi Sedat,<br>
>><br>
<div class="im">>> I have reimplemented the checkpoint feature this weekend and I would like to<br>
>> test it with your settings too.<br>
>><br>
>> Can you send me it? Also would be great to see other people trying to use<br>
>> it. If you have time, please checkout my branch and read<br>
>> Documentation/settings_file.txt.<br>
>><br>
><br>
</div>> We should stop top-posting, eh?<br>
<br></div>Yes. Thanks.<br><div><br>
> With my (llvmlinux-patched) LLVM/CLANG toolchain I hit many<br>> non-toolchain issues this weekend when trying to build LIBDRM/MESA in<br>
> an /opt/xorg installation.<br>
> <br>
> Following all daily upstream changes in LLVMLinux is NOT possible and<br>
> NOT wanted by me.<br>
> <br>> I think people are interested in "stable" work against stable releases.<br>
> <br>> I was planning to push my adapted/refreshed LLVMLinux patches against<br>> v3.2-stable of llvm/clang/compiler-rt.<br>> Are you interested in them?<br>
<br></div><div>Yes. But I don't know where to place it. Maybe we could have stable work<br>and stable releases at the same time. Honestly, I don't know (even how).<br></div><div><br>
> I had a look into your settings_file.txt file but did not get wiser, sorry.<br>
><br>> I am still trying to track a Linux-Next issue with JBD2 (or LOOP).<br>
> Let's see if linux-fsdevel people can help.<br>
><br>
> Hope this helps you.<br><br></div><div>For sure it will.<span class=""></span><br><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>Tinti<br></div><div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
- Sedat -</font></span><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Sedat Dilek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sedat.dilek@gmail.com" target="_blank">sedat.dilek@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Tinti <<a href="mailto:viniciustinti@gmail.com">viniciustinti@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Sedat,<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> I have reimplemented the checkpoint feature this weekend and I would like to<br>
> test it with your settings too.<br>
><br>
> Can you send me it? Also would be great to see other people trying to use<br>
> it. If you have time, please checkout my branch and read<br>
> Documentation/settings_file.txt.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>We should stop top-posting, eh?<br>
<br>
With my (llvmlinux-patched) LLVM/CLANG toolchain I hit many<br>
non-toolchain issues this weekend when trying to build LIBDRM/MESA in<br>
an /opt/xorg installation.<br>
<br>
Following all daily upstream changes in LLVMLinux is NOT possible and<br>
NOT wanted by me.<br>
<br>
I think people are interested in "stable" work against stable releases.<br>
<br>
I was planning to push my adapted/refreshed LLVMLinux patches against<br>
v3.2-stable of llvm/clang/compiler-rt.<br>
Are you interested in them?<br>
<br>
I had a look into your settings_file.txt file but did not get wiser, sorry.<br>
<br>
I am still trying to track a Linux-Next issue with JBD2 (or LOOP).<br>
Let's see if linux-fsdevel people can help.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps you.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
- Sedat -<br>
</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Tinti<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sedat Dilek <<a href="mailto:sedat.dilek@gmail.com">sedat.dilek@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Tinti,<br>
>><br>
>> I have adapted the LLVM/CLANG patches from LLVMLinux project against<br>
>> v3.2-stable.<br>
>><br>
>> Toolchain is fine...<br>
>> Just (mis)used build of mesa-8.x as a test-case [1].<br>
>><br>
>> Will look tomorrow into the Linux x86_64 patches.<br>
>><br>
>> - Sedat -<br>
>><br>
>> [1]<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-January/033614.html" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-January/033614.html</a><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tinti <<a href="mailto:viniciustinti@gmail.com">viniciustinti@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Hi Sedat,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > About stable versions please check my branch. I have just uploaded the<br>
>> > documentation about it (Documentation/settings_file.txt) and an example<br>
>> > in<br>
>> > rpi target. I think it fits for your purposes.<br>
>> > I have not applied on master because I would like to have some reviews<br>
>> > and<br>
>> > feedbacks. Is anything else that you would like to add?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Best regards,<br>
>> > Tinti<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> What is {the | your | a good} base for the Linux-kernel (speaking of<br>
>> >> x86_64)?<br>
>> >> v3.7.y (latest stable version)?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The LLVMLinux project works from the HEAD of LLVM and the Linux project.<br>
>> > Since the goal is to upstream patches to both projects, we really have<br>
>> > to<br>
>> > work from HEAD.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > As far as saving checkpoints that work with a particular version of a<br>
>> > kernel, somebody merely needs to create a settings file which details<br>
>> > the<br>
>> > versions of all SW involved. The settings file is described in<br>
>> > Documentation/settings_file.txt<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Tinti is using this to create a checkpoint for the rpi community so that<br>
>> > people can play with a stable kernel there for instance. You are welcome<br>
>> > to<br>
>> > do the same for x86_64.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Behan Webster<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:behanw@converseincode.com">behanw@converseincode.com</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 13-01-17 09:11 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Hi,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> first of all I wish all people from the LLVMLinux project a happy new<br>
>> >>> year!<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Same to you! :)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> After a case of death in my family I dropped all my OSS activities for<br>
>> >>> a<br>
>> >>> while.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I'm very sorry to hear that.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> The last weeks I started to build again mainline and Linux-Next<br>
>> >>> kernels.<br>
>> >>> ...and playing with Linux Test Project (LTP).<br>
>> >>> I would like also to test a llvmlinux-compiled Linux-kernel with LTP!<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> We are already running LTP with a clang compiled kernel, but currently<br>
>> >> only for the vexpress (ARM based) kernel. It's just a matter of<br>
>> >> somebody<br>
>> >> porting the code. I too would like to see an automated x86 LTP test<br>
>> >> run.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> Today, I remembered the $JOBS variable<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> "make help" has details about a lot of things, including the $JOBS<br>
>> >> variable. The default value of JOBS likely will be close to optimum. On<br>
>> >> my<br>
>> >> machine (at least) if I ingrease JOBS much higher than the calculated<br>
>> >> default, it actually slows down the compile.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> What is {the | your | a good} base for the Linux-kernel (speaking of<br>
>> >>> x86_64)?<br>
>> >>> v3.7.y (latest stable version)?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The LLVMLinux project works from the HEAD of LLVM and the Linux<br>
>> >> project.<br>
>> >> Since the goal is to upstream patches to both projects, we really have<br>
>> >> to<br>
>> >> work from HEAD.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> As far as saving checkpoints that work with a particular version of a<br>
>> >> kernel, somebody merely needs to create a settings file which details<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> versions of all SW involved. The settings file is described in<br>
>> >> Documentation/settings_file.txt<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Tinti is using this to create a checkpoint for the rpi community so<br>
>> >> that<br>
>> >> people can play with a stable kernel there for instance. You are<br>
>> >> welcome to<br>
>> >> do the same for x86_64.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> $ grep "Kernel Configuration" -nr ./<br>
>> >>> ./targets/x86_64/config_x86_64:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0 Kernel<br>
>> >>> Configuration<br>
>> >>> ./targets/x86_64/config_x86_64_default:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0-rc5<br>
>> >>> Kernel Configuration<br>
>> >>> ./targets/i586/config_i586:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0 Kernel Configuration<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> That's merely the version of the kernel that was being used when that<br>
>> >> config file was last updated. It doesn't indicate a stable version of<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> kernel source.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> Is the listed kernel-config a good base?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> It is the one we are currently testing with. This file is intended to<br>
>> >> create a bootable kernel on an average x86_64 computer.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> Same question to llvm and clang.<br>
>> >>> v3.2 (latest stable version)?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Again, we don't use stable versions of the toolchain. We use HEAD.<br>
>> >> Until<br>
>> >> our patches are in we have to keep developing and testing with the<br>
>> >> latest/greatest code.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> Personally, I wanted to test against ***stable*** versions of all 3<br>
>> >>> components.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Great! That would be very helpful.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> Some patches are not listed in the appropriate series files (so-to-say<br>
>> >>> UNUSED).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The existence of a patch file doesn't mean it's actually being used.<br>
>> >> The<br>
>> >> series file lists which patches are currently in use.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Patches which aren't in a series file usually are left in place until<br>
>> >> we're sure we don't need them anymore (or at all).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> I am still against all this uncommon naming of patches (speaking<br>
>> >>> mostly of the ones for the Linux-kernel).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> In this case many of the patch names for x86_64 have been created from<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> commit comments by "git format-patch".<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I would encourage you to work within our build framework if you can. If<br>
>> >> we<br>
>> >> all work on the same code base, with the same test framework, we can<br>
>> >> much<br>
>> >> more easily share work and accelerate our efforts.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks!<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Behan<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> --<br>
>> >> Behan Webster<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:behanw@converseincode.com">behanw@converseincode.com</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> LLVMLinux mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org">LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> >> <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > --<br>
>> > Vinicius Tinti<br>
>> > mail => {<a href="mailto:viniciustinti@gmail.com">viniciustinti@gmail.com</a>, <a href="mailto:tinti@comp.eng.br">tinti@comp.eng.br</a>}<br>
>> > skype => {viniciustinti}<br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > LLVMLinux mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org">LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> > <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> LLVMLinux mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org">LLVMLinux@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Vinicius Tinti<br>
> mail => {<a href="mailto:viniciustinti@gmail.com">viniciustinti@gmail.com</a>, <a href="mailto:tinti@comp.eng.br">tinti@comp.eng.br</a>}<br>
> skype => {viniciustinti}<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Vinicius Tinti <br>mail => {<a href="mailto:viniciustinti@gmail.com" target="_blank">viniciustinti@gmail.com</a>, <a href="mailto:tinti@comp.eng.br" target="_blank">tinti@comp.eng.br</a>}<br>
skype => {viniciustinti}
</div></div></div>