On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 16:43 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

Right, it's a small and fairly easily auditable list - it's more
about
the app than the double enable which was what I thought your concern
was.  It's a bit annoying definitely and not something we want to do
in
general but for something like this where we're adding specific
coverage
for API extensions for the feature it seems like a reasonable
tradeoff.

If the x86 toolchain/libc support is widely enough deployed (or you
just
don't mind any missing coverage) we could use the toolchain support
there and only have the manual enable for arm64, it'd be inconsistent
but not wildly so.

I'm hoping there is not too much of a gap before the glibc support
starts filtering out. Long term, elf bit enabling is probably the right
thing for the generic tests. Short term, manual enabling is ok with me
if no one else minds. Maybe we could add my "don't do" list as a
comment if we do manual enabling?

I'll have to check your new series, but I also wonder if we could cram
the manual enabling and status checking pieces into some headers and
not have to have "if x86" "if arm" logic in the test themselves.