Hello Mike,
Thanks for promptly reviewing the patches. Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:42:07PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> If the userfaultfd test is run on a kernel with CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=n, it >> will report that the system call is not available yet go ahead and continue >> anyway: >> >> # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1 >> nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120 >> userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel >> bounces: 0, mode:, register failure >> >> This is because userfaultfd_open() returns 0 on success and 1 on error but >> all callers assume that it returns < 0 on error. >> >> Since the convention of the test as a whole is the one used by >> userfault_open(), fix its callers instead. Now the test behaves correctly: >> >> # ./userfaultfd anon 30 1 >> nr_pages: 480, nr_pages_per_cpu: 120 >> userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel >> >> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauer...@linux.ibm.com> > > It seems that this patch is superseded by the second patch in this series. Yes, but since this is a simple bugfix while the other patch is a proposed improvement which can be debated, I think it's worthwhile to keep them separate. -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center
