[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1790444d-db2a-6a92-b49e-513700c00f5c@sandeen.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:18:32 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sysctl: add pending proc_do_large_bitmap fix
On 3/21/19 12:13 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/20/19 5:28 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> Andrew, Kees,
>>
>> Eric sent a fix out for proc_do_large_bitmap() last month for when
>> using a large input buffer. After patch review a test case for the issue
>> was built and submitted. I noticed there were a few issues with the
>> tests, but instead of just asking Eric to address them I've taken
>> care of them and ammended the commit where necessary. There's a
>> few issues he reported which I also address and fix in this series.
>>
>> Since we *do* expect users of these scripts to also use them on older
>> kernels, I've also addressed not breaking calling the script for them,
>> and gives us an easy way to easily extend our tests cases for future
>> kernels as well.
>>
>> Before anyone considers these for stable as minor fixes, I'd recommend
>> we also address the discrepancy on the read side of things: modify the
>> test script to use diff against the target file instead of using the
>> temp file.
>>
>> Eric Sandeen (2):
>> test_sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmap() test case
>> sysctl: Fix proc_do_large_bitmap for large input buffers
>
> Isn't this missing:
>
> [PATCH] sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmap test node
Oh, I see, you rolled it into the test patch. that wasn't clear...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists