On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 18:48:49 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.06.25 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:00:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >
> >> This seems to be causing tests to fail rather than be skipped if hugetlb
> >> isn't configured. I bisected the problem t
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 07:34:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.06.25 19:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> > TBH this has been a lot better than the more common failure mode with
> > working on selftests where people just completely ignore or are openly
> > dismissive about them :/ . Probably ro
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 07:29:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:47:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>
> > Mark, I'm not finding this productive.
>
> > Bottom line is you've broken the tests, please fix them or if you're not
> > willing to I'll send a fix.
>
> Sure, like I
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:47:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Mark, I'm not finding this productive.
> Bottom line is you've broken the tests, please fix them or if you're not
> willing to I'll send a fix.
Sure, like I said further up I'm just running my patch through testing
at the minute.
Mark, I'm not finding this productive.
Bottom line is you've broken the tests, please fix them or if you're not
willing to I'll send a fix.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:38:36PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:09:09PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:09:09PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:42:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > Better to do all of these formating fixes and maintain the _same
> > > behaviour_ then
> > > separately tackle whether or not we should skip.
> > I'm confused, tha
On 05.06.25 19:19, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:55:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 05.06.25 18:42, Mark Brown wrote:
I can't remember off hand, sorry.
I assume in ... my review to patch #4?
Oh, yeah - it's there. I did look there but the "not a fan" bit made me
t
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 06:55:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.06.25 18:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I can't remember off hand, sorry.
> I assume in ... my review to patch #4?
Oh, yeah - it's there. I did look there but the "not a fan" bit made me
think it was one of the stylistic thin
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:42:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:26:05PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:15:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > That's the thing with memfd being special and skipping on setup failure
> > > that David mentioned,
On 05.06.25 18:42, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:26:05PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:15:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
That's the thing with memfd being special and skipping on setup failure
that David mentioned, I've got a patch as part of the forma
On 05.06.25 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:00:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
This seems to be causing tests to fail rather than be skipped if hugetlb
isn't configured. I bisected the problem to this patch so it's definitely
changed how things are handled (though of cour
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:26:05PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:15:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That's the thing with memfd being special and skipping on setup failure
> > that David mentioned, I've got a patch as part of the formatting series
> > I was going to
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:15:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:00:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>
> > This seems to be causing tests to fail rather than be skipped if hugetlb
> > isn't configured. I bisected the problem to this patch so it's definitely
> > changed how
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:00:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> This seems to be causing tests to fail rather than be skipped if hugetlb
> isn't configured. I bisected the problem to this patch so it's definitely
> changed how things are handled (though of course it might just be
> _revealing_
This seems to be causing tests to fail rather than be skipped if hugetlb
isn't configured. I bisected the problem to this patch so it's definitely
changed how things are handled (though of course it might just be
_revealing_ some previously existing bug in this test...).
Using a couple of tests as
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:36:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 27.05.25 18:04, Mark Brown wrote:
> > + int result = KSFT_PASS;
> > int ret;
> > + if (fd < 0) {
> > + result = KSFT_FAIL;
> > + goto report;
> > + }
> Not a fan of that, especially as it suddenl
On 27.05.25 18:04, Mark Brown wrote:
The kselftest framework uses the string logged when a test result is
reported as the unique identifier for a test, using it to track test
results between runs. The gup_longterm test fails to follow this
pattern, it runs a single test function repeatedly with v
The kselftest framework uses the string logged when a test result is
reported as the unique identifier for a test, using it to track test
results between runs. The gup_longterm test fails to follow this
pattern, it runs a single test function repeatedly with various
parameters but each result repor
18 matches
Mail list logo
