[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
marcandre.lureau@...hat.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more
robust
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:47:36PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> > earlier versions?
>
> Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the
updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2. I
thought that would suffice which covers all the cases. That's why I dropped
it. Would that be Ok?
The changelog of the previous series had it because the selftest was added
only later.
Let me know, thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists