On 11/2/23 4:45 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 21/08/2023 15:15, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> +
>> +int init_uffd(void)
>> +{
>> + struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
>> +
>> + uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK |
>> UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY);
>> + if (uffd == -1)
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("uffd syscall failed\n");
>> +
>> + uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
>> + uffdio_api.features = UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED |
>> UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC |
>> + UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM;
>> + if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api))
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("UFFDIO_API\n");
>> +
>> + if (!(uffdio_api.api & UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP) ||
>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED) ||
>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC) ||
>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM))
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("UFFDIO_API error %llu\n", uffdio_api.api);
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just noticed that this fails on arm64 because the required features are
> not
> available. It's common practice to skip instead of fail for this sort of
> condition (and that's how all the other uffd tests work). The current fail
> approach creates noise in our CI.
>
> I see this is already in mm-stable so perhaps we can add a patch to fix on
> top?
Yeah, we can add a patch to skip all the tests instead of failing here. Let
me send a patch this week.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
>
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
