Ah you got to this first :) thanks!
Could you do this with a cover letter though? It's really weird to have 2/2
reply to 1/2, I know sometimes people do that, but it's just odd, and it'd be
good to have an overview, thanks!
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:23:32PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> When userfaultfd is not compiled into kernel, userfaultfd() returns -1,
> causing uffd tests in madv_guard fail. Skip the tests instead.
'madv_guard'? I'd just say the guard_regions.uffd test to fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <z...@nvidia.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> index 0cd9d236649d..93af3d3760f9 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> @@ -1453,8 +1453,21 @@ TEST_F(guard_regions, uffd)
>
> /* Set up uffd. */
> uffd = userfaultfd(0);
> - if (uffd == -1 && errno == EPERM)
> - ksft_exit_skip("No userfaultfd permissions, try running as
> root.\n");
Let's just make this all part of the same switch please!
And while I originally used ksft_exit_skip(), I think we can just use the
SKIP(return, ...) form here just fine to keep it consistent.
> + if (uffd == -1) {
> + switch (errno) {
> + case EPERM:
> + SKIP(return, "No userfaultfd permissions, try running
> as root.");
> + break;
> + case ENOSYS:
> + SKIP(return, "userfaultfd is not supported/not
> enabled.");
> + break;
> + default:
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("userfaultfd failed with %s\n",
> + strerror(errno));
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> ASSERT_NE(uffd, -1);
>
> ASSERT_EQ(ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &api), 0);
> --
> 2.47.2
>
Thanks!
