[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220412134159.f0a1d0d77f5b01638007bf4b@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:41:59 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use
/dev/userfaultfd
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:29:42 -0700 Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com> wrote:
> Prefer this new interface, but if using it fails for any reason just
> fall back to using userfaultfd(2) as before.
This seems a poor idea - the old interface will henceforth be untested.
Why not tweak the code to test both interfaces?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists