linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] selftests/mm: fix va_high_addr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aUjJ0OKZajNNoQok@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 12:32:16 +0800
From: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: david@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
	rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
	Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] selftests/mm: fix va_high_addr_switch.sh return
 value

On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 10:57:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:00:21 +0800 Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Patch series "Fix va_high_addr_switch.sh test failure - again", v2.
> > 
> > The series address several issues exist for the va_high_addr_switch test:
> > 1) the test return value is ignored in va_high_addr_switch.sh.
> > 2) the va_high_addr_switch test requires 6 hugepages not 5.
> > 3) the reurn value of the first test in va_high_addr_switch.c can be
> >    overridden by the second test.
> > 4) the nr_hugepages setup in run_vmtests.sh for arm64 can be done in
> >    va_high_addr_switch.sh too.
> > 5) update a comment for check_test_requirements.
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - shorten the comment in for hugepages setup in v1
> >  - add a new patch to fix the return value overridden issue in
> >    va_high_addr_switch.c
> >  - fix a code comment for check_test_requirements.
> >  - update the series summary in patch 1
> >  - add reviewed-by from Luiz Capitulino on patch 1 and patch 3
> 
> The "Changes in v2" material is best placed below the "---" separator -
> I prefer not to capture such short-term development-time info within
> the permanent kernel record.

That makes sense.

> 
> > This patch: (of 5)
> > 
> > The return value should be return value of va_high_addr_switch, otherwise
> > a test failure would be silently ignored.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
> > Fixes: d9d957bd7b61 ("selftests/mm: alloc hugepages in va_high_addr_switch test")
> > CC: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > According to the doc below, I don't add the cover letter, not sure if cover
> > letter is preferred, and if that's the case, the doc need an update.
> 
> Funnily enough, your series was in the exact format which I use when
> committing patch series.  Usually people put the cover letter in a
> separate [0/N] email and I move that into the [1/N] patch's changelog,
> as you've done here.

yes, I see cover-letter is the actualy way people is using and looks
like I did some of your work putting that cover letter into the first
patch. I think I'll add cover-letter in the future.


> 
> > https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
> 
> God does that still exist?  Pretty soon it will be able to legally
> drink in bars.
> 
> I think its content got absorbed into a Documentation/ file a long time
> ago!

I happened to open it before I submitting my patch, and wanted to know 
what would happen if I follow that. And it looks like cover letter has
become the actual convention.

> 
>