+Dave Hansen On 31/07/2025 18:01, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > The while loop doesn't execute and following warning gets generated: > > protection_keys.c:561:15: warning: code will never be executed > [-Wunreachable-code] > int rpkey = alloc_random_pkey(); > > Let's enable the while loop such that it gets executed nr_iterations > times. Simplify the code a bit as well. > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <[email protected]> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c > index 23ebec367015f..6281d4c61b50e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c > @@ -557,13 +557,11 @@ int mprotect_pkey(void *ptr, size_t size, unsigned long > orig_prot, > int nr_iterations = random() % 100; > int ret; > > - while (0) { > + while (nr_iterations-- >= 0) {
Now that is a good catch! I had never realised this whole loop was dead code... The question is whether we really want it. This code looked exactly this way when it was merged [1] so it has never been run. It looks suspiciously like debug code. Dave, should we just remove this? - Kevin [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/#u > int rpkey = alloc_random_pkey(); > ret = sys_mprotect_pkey(ptr, size, orig_prot, pkey); > dprintf1("sys_mprotect_pkey(%p, %zx, prot=0x%lx, pkey=%ld) ret: > %d\n", > ptr, size, orig_prot, pkey, ret); > - if (nr_iterations-- < 0) > - break; > > dprintf1("%s()::%d, ret: %d pkey_reg: 0x%016llx" > " shadow: 0x%016llx\n",
