Skip to content

Conversation

jbosboom
Copy link
Contributor

@jbosboom jbosboom commented Oct 16, 2025

stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt was added in Linux 6.16, but is controlled by the STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC mask bit added in Linux 6.11. That's safe at runtime because all kernels clear the reserved space in struct statx and zero is a valid value for stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt, and it avoids allocating another mask bit, which are a limited resource. But it also means the kernel headers don't provide a way to check whether stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt exists, so add a configure check.

I ran make regen-configure. I know very little about autoconf, so please check I didn't mess up.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--140185.org.readthedocs.build/

stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt was added in Linux 6.16, but is controlled
by the STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC mask bit added in Linux 6.11.  That's safe at
runtime because all kernels clear the reserved space in struct statx and
zero is a valid value for stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt, and it avoids
allocating another mask bit, which are a limited resource.  But it also
means the kernel headers don't provide a way to check whether
stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt exists, so add a configure check.
@jbosboom
Copy link
Contributor Author

!buildbot AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL 3.x

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

You don't have write permissions to trigger a build

@jbosboom
Copy link
Contributor Author

#139178 failed on the AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL 3.x (tier-1), ARM64 Raspbian Debug 3.x (tier-3) and ARM Raspbian 3.x (tier-3) buildbots. I need someone with the appropriate permissions to run those before merging.

This should be skip-news.

Copy link
Contributor

@cmaloney cmaloney left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like a reasonable approach to me; a core dev can trigger the bots to validate (although the queue can take a while to get to the top of).

I think skip news works as this is falls under "If a change is a fix (or other adjustment) to an earlier unreleased change and the original NEWS entry remains valid, then no additional entry is needed."

@encukou

This comment was marked as outdated.

@bedevere-bot

This comment was marked as outdated.

@encukou

This comment was marked as outdated.

1 similar comment
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Oct 16, 2025

!buildbot AMD64.CentOS9.NoGIL

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @encukou for commit 37ebb56 🤖

Results will be shown at:

https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/grid?branch=refs%2Fpull%2F140185%2Fmerge

The command will test the builders whose names match following regular expression: AMD64.CentOS9.NoGIL

The builders matched are:

  • AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL PR
  • AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL Refleaks PR

Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, but let me check on buildbots.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

!buildbot Raspbian

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @vstinner for commit 37ebb56 🤖

Results will be shown at:

https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/grid?branch=refs%2Fpull%2F140185%2Fmerge

The command will test the builders whose names match following regular expression: Raspbian

The builders matched are:

  • ARM Raspbian Linux Asan PR
  • ARM64 Raspbian Debug PR
  • ARM Raspbian PR
  • ARM64 Raspbian PR

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Oct 16, 2025

Buildbot issues to expect:

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Buildbots passed successfully:

  • buildbot/AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL PR
  • buildbot/ARM Raspbian PR
  • buildbot/ARM64 Raspbian Debug PR
  • buildbot/ARM64 Raspbian PR

Buildbot issues to expect: The refleak in test_type_aliases was #140197.

Alright, AMD64 CentOS9 NoGIL Refleaks PR failed on an unrelated test: test_type_aliases leaked [1, 1, 1] references, sum=3.

@vstinner vstinner merged commit 5a31024 into python:main Oct 16, 2025
58 of 59 checks passed
@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Merged, thanks @jbosboom.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants