On 16.05.25 20:07, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:12:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 16.05.25 15:09, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm afraid we have other such tests that report duplicate conditions. cow.c
is likely another candidate (written by me ;) ).
That one's not come up for me (this was one of four different patches
for mm selftests I sent the other day cleaning up duplicate test names).
$ sudo ./cow
...
1..778
# [INFO] Anonymous memory tests in private mappings
# [RUN] Basic COW after fork() ... with base page
ok 1 No leak from parent into child
# [RUN] Basic COW after fork() ... with swapped out base page
ok 2 No leak from parent into child
Aren't the duplicate "No leak from parent into child" the problematic bits?
But maybe I am getting it wrong, what needs to be "unique" :)
Ah, yes - that's got the same issue. I'm not running that program one
way or another, it's not immediately clear to me why not - I can't see
any sign of it being invoked by the runner script but I also can't see
anything that I'd expect to stop that happening. I'll have to have a
poke at it, thanks for flagging that.
[Converting to kselftet_harness]
That'd certainly work, though doing that is more surgery on the test
than I personally have the time/enthusiasm for right now.
Same over here.
But probably if we touch it, we should just clean it up right away. Well,
if we decide that that is the right cleanup. (you mention something like that
in your patch description :)
OTOH there's something to be said for just making incremental
improvements in the tests where we can, they tend not to get huge
amounts of love in general which means perfect can very much be the
enemy of good. If there's some immediate prospect of someone doing a
bigger refactoring then that'd be amazing, but if not then it seems
useful to make things play better with the automation for now.
I would agree if it would be a handful of small changes.
But here we are already at
1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
