diff mbox series

[1/1] strace: 6.17 -> 6.18

Message ID 1fc8161d254e37709e63cf9d07ebd32a2f1023cc.1765878985.git.liezhi.yang@windriver.com
State New
Headers show
Series [1/1] strace: 6.17 -> 6.18 | expand

Commit Message

Robert Yang Dec. 16, 2025, 9:57 a.m. UTC 
From: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>

The 6.17 has 27 failed test cases, and 6.18 only has 2 failed ones:
FAIL: bpf.gen.test
FAIL: bpf-v.gen.test

Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-devtools/strace/{strace_6.17.bb => strace_6.18.bb} | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/strace/{strace_6.17.bb => strace_6.18.bb} (96%)

Comments

Alexander Kanavin Dec. 16, 2025, 11:29 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 at 10:57, Robert Yang via lists.openembedded.org
<liezhi.yang=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> The 6.17 has 27 failed test cases, and 6.18 only has 2 failed ones:
> FAIL: bpf.gen.test
> FAIL: bpf-v.gen.test

This needs a bit more context. If the old version had failures, and
the new version still has failures, why aren't they seen in testing?
Where and how do they happen? Should they be fixed rather?

Alex
Robert Yang Dec. 17, 2025, 2:58 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Alexander,

On 12/16/25 19:29, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 at 10:57, Robert Yang via lists.openembedded.org
> <liezhi.yang=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>> The 6.17 has 27 failed test cases, and 6.18 only has 2 failed ones:
>> FAIL: bpf.gen.test
>> FAIL: bpf-v.gen.test
> 
> This needs a bit more context. If the old version had failures, and
> the new version still has failures, why aren't they seen in testing?

They are ptest failures, and there is no specific test for it, so we don't see
the failures. I did look into the failures, but didn't know how to fix that, the
newer version has less failures than the older one, so I sent the upgrade patch.

// Robert

> Where and how do they happen? Should they be fixed rather?
 > > Alex
Alexander Kanavin Dec. 17, 2025, 8:41 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 at 03:58, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote:
> >> The 6.17 has 27 failed test cases, and 6.18 only has 2 failed ones:
> >> FAIL: bpf.gen.test
> >> FAIL: bpf-v.gen.test
> >
> > This needs a bit more context. If the old version had failures, and
> > the new version still has failures, why aren't they seen in testing?
>
> They are ptest failures, and there is no specific test for it, so we don't see
> the failures. I did look into the failures, but didn't know how to fix that, the
> newer version has less failures than the older one, so I sent the upgrade patch.

But we do run strace ptests, and they do not fail, e.g. with latest
nightly master:

https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/73/builds/2761/steps/14/logs/stdio

Does bitbake -c testimage core-image-ptest-strace fail for you? How
did you set up and ran the tests to see them fail?

Alex
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.17.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.18.bb
similarity index 96%
rename from meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.17.bb
rename to meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.18.bb
index b6fda2b8ce..dfb07c3a73 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.17.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_6.18.bb
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@  SRC_URI = "${GITHUB_BASE_URI}/download/v${PV}/strace-${PV}.tar.xz \
 SRC_URI:append:libc-musl = "\
            file://0001-Ignore-pwritev-pwrite64-tests-on-musl.patch \
            "
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "0a7c7bedc7efc076f3242a0310af2ae63c292a36dd4236f079e88a93e98cb9c0"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "0ad5dcba973a69e779650ef1cb335b12ee60716fc7326609895bd33e6d2a7325"
 
 inherit autotools github-releases ptest