[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d23ba51-e8d8-41bc-8d46-a7bccb4c3c20@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 12:51:29 +0100
From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, rppt@...nel.org,
surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, hannes@...xchg.org, baohua@...nel.org,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, riel@...riel.com, ziy@...dia.com,
laoar.shao@...il.com, dev.jain@....com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
npache@...hat.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
vbabka@...e.cz, jannh@...gle.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
sj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] selftests: prctl: introduce tests for disabling
THPs except for madvise
>
> Why would you move things around though? Think it's fine as-is, if something on
> setup fails then all tests should fail.
If its a "test" itself and not a check, I think its better if it belongs in TEST_F and
not FIXTURE_SETUP.
But yeah this is ofcourse going to be the first test, so if it fails the entire thing
is marked as a failure and we dont proceed.
>
> Cheers, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists