Re: [XEN PATCH 1/2] xen: Fix check-endbr with mawk

[Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/07/2022 19:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 16:12, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 14/07/2022 15:39, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>> check-endbr.sh works well with gawk, but fails with mawk. The produced
>>> $ALL file is smaller, it is missing 0x$vma_lo on every line. On mawk,
>>> int(0x2A) just produce 0, instead of the expected value.
>>>
>>> The use of hexadecimal-constant in awk is an optional part of the
>>> posix spec, and mawk doesn't seems to implemented.
>>>
>>> There is a way to convert an hexadecimal to a number be putting it in
>>> a string, and awk as I understand is supposed to use strtod() to
>>> convert the string to a number when needed. The expression
>>> 'int("0x15") + 21' would produce the expected value in `mawk` but now
>>> `gawk` won't convert the string to a number unless we use the option
>>> "--non-decimal-data".
>>>
>>> So let's convert the hexadecimal number before using it in the awk
>>> script. The shell as no issue with dealing with hexadecimal-constant
>>> so we'll simply use the expression "$(( 0x15 ))" to convert the value
>>> before using it in awk.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 4d037425dc ("x86: Build check for embedded endbr64 instructions")
>>> Reported-by: Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: Mathieu Tarral <mathieu.tarral@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Thanks for doing this.  You beat me to it.
>>
>> On policy first, we have https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/issues/26
>> open for tracking this bug.
>>
>> We should consider having
>>
>> Resolves xen-project/xen#26
>>
>> in our list of tags, so Gitlab can properly cross-reference this fix. 
>> (I wonder if Resolves: works...)
> Yes it does.  Gitlab successfully cross-referenced my dev branch ...
>
>> https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/managing_issues.html#closing-issues-automatically
>> is the full list of patterns available, but I think we want to keep
>> Fixes: for it's current meaning.
>>
>>
>> I also want to wait for the patchew CI run to complete
> ... pushed because patchew failed to pick the series up for some reason.

This series is now fully acked/reviewed and ready, and passed CI (well -
the bits of CI which aren't broken for other reasons).

Given the lack of objections, I'm going to use this patch alone as an
experiment to see how Resolves: works through other bits of our workflow
too.  Unless someone objects very promptly.

~Andrew