Note, this doesn't seem to apply to my tree so I only added the first
patch. I think this needs to go through Shuah's tree.
-- Steve
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:08:29 +
Beau Belgrave wrote:
> The abi_test currently uses a long sized test value for enablement
> checks. On LE this works fine, h
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:26 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:21 PM Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:08:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Sorry I have to ask: has this ever been discussed on the list? I don't see
> > > any pointers. If not, then
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:43 AM Michal Wajdeczko
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28.09.2023 22:53, Rae Moar wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:58 PM Michal Wajdeczko
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> When running parametrized test cases, diagnostic messages
> >> are not properly aligned with the test result lines:
> >>
>
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:42 AM Michal Wajdeczko
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28.09.2023 22:52, Rae Moar wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:58 PM Michal Wajdeczko
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> A kunit suite is a top level test from the KTAP point of view but
> >> all suite diagnostic messages are printed at the sub
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:48 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> On Sep 26 2023, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Gentle ping on this patch. Looking to get this patch and [1] slated
> > for 6.7 wherein we can start getting cleaner kselftests builds.
> >
> > I do not think I am able to successf
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:21 PM Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:08:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Sorry I have to ask: has this ever been discussed on the list? I don't see
> > any pointers. If not, then probably the number of people that know about the
> > history can be c
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:08:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Sorry I have to ask: has this ever been discussed on the list? I don't see
> any pointers. If not, then probably the number of people that know about the
> history can be counted with my two hands and that shouldn't be the basis f
On 03.10.23 22:21, Peter Xu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 01:04:44PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
Ok, I think it makes sense to implement the strict remap logic but in
a way that we can easily add copy fallback if that's needed in the
future. So, I'll change UFFDIO_REMAP to UFFDIO_MOVE and
On 03.10.23 22:04, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 12:34 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.10.23 17:55, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:46 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:21 PM Peter Xu wro
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 01:04:44PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Ok, I think it makes sense to implement the strict remap logic but in
> a way that we can easily add copy fallback if that's needed in the
> future. So, I'll change UFFDIO_REMAP to UFFDIO_MOVE and will return
> some unique error,
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 12:34 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> > On 02.10.23 17:55, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:46 PM Lokesh Gidra
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:21 PM Peter Xu wrote:
> > >>>
> >
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:30 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 02.10.23 17:23, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 04:42:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 23.09.23 03:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >>> From: Andrea Arcangeli
> >>>
> >>> As far as the rmap code is concerned, U
On 9/27/23 07:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
> # define VM_PKEY_SHIFT VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0
> # define VM_PKEY_BIT0VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 /* A protection key is a 4-bit
> value */
> # define VM_PKEY_BIT1
On 9/27/23 07:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> arm64's fpregs are not at a constant offset from sigcontext. Since this is
> not an important part of the test, don't print the fpregs pointer on arm64.
Acked-by: Dave Hansen
On 9/27/23 07:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> The encoding of the pkey register differs on arm64, than on x86/ppc. On those
> platforms, a bit in the register is used to disable permissions, for arm64, a
> bit enabled in the register indicates that the permission is allowed.
>
> This drops two asserts of
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 at 19:14, Osama Muhammad wrote:
>
> This patch covers the testing of PR_GET_NAME by
> reading it's value from proc/self/task/pid/comm
> and matching it with the value returned by PR_GET_NAME.
> If the values are matched then it's successful, otherwise
> it fails.
Any Feedback
When a local partition becomes invalid, it won't transition back to
valid partition automatically if a proper "cpuset.cpus.exclusive" or
"cpuset.cpus" change is made. Instead, system administrators have to
explicitly echo "root" or "isolated" into the "cpuset.cpus.partition"
file at the partition r
On 10/2/23 06:06, Pierre Gondois wrote:
Hello Waiman,
I could test the patch using the for-next branch in your tree.
Just a NIT, it seemed that the message indicating the reason
the isolated configuration was invalid is not printed anymore:
Commands:
# mkdir cgroup
# mount -t cgroup2 none cgr
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 09:45:56AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> clone3 seems to have features that are only available in clone3 and
> not exposed (reasonably) in libc apis so ppl will use clone3 directly
> and those will be hard to fix for gcs (you have to convince upstream
> to add future arm64
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:43:25PM +, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> If ARM is thinking of doing things differently than x86, you might
> think about how you weight those tradeoffs. Like, it might be silly to
> worry about clone() support if something else ends up breaking
> compatibility majorly.
Hello!
On 2023-09-29 at 10:04:21 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 9/29/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>...
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>> index 3a8111362d26..342a3dbcdbb6 100644
>> --- a/
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 09:36:56AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> A separate makefile rule was used for split targets which was added
> in patch(KVM: arm64: selftests: Split get-reg-list test code). This
> could be avoided by minor changes to the recipes of current rule.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu
> -
The 10/02/2023 20:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:59:25PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > The 08/23/2023 14:11, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > > > and there is user code doing raw clone threads (such threads are
> > > > technically not allowed to call into libc) it's not immediate
* Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> Kselftests are kernel tests and must be build with kernel headers from
> same source version. These duplicate defines should automatically
> picked up from kernel headers. Use KHDR_INCLUDES to add kernel header
> files.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
