[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <569270da-8827-4a3c-84db-91f715ef5c22@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 09:53:10 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: wang lian <lianux.mm@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ziy@...dia.com,
david@...hat.com, sj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, brauner@...nel.org, gkwang@...x-info.com,
jannh@...gle.com, p1ucky0923@...il.com, ryncsn@...il.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, zijing.zhang@...ton.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] selftests/mm: add process_madvise() tests
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:11:47AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 07:22:49PM +0800, wang lian wrote:
>
> > > +#include <linux/pidfd.h>
>
> > However, the pidfd tests already have a stub in so you can alternatively
> > use:
>
> > #include "../pidfd/pidfd.h"
>
> > As is done in guard-regions.c.
>
> One thing to watch out for with peering into the private header files of
> other selftests is that it's a routine source of build and sometimes
> runtime failures, people have a tendency to update one selftest without
> thinking that other selftests might be peering at their code. The cross
> tree aspect can make it painful to deal with the resulting issues.
I take it from the lack of reported issues this hasn't happened in reality.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists