[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6o26diaubgcxqzmdldrpkfstmzjiz7ffpr3lhznk2mcx6eonk7@77y3gwxw5n3y>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 08:21:42 +0800
From: zishun yi <320016a@...il.com>
To: "Kasireddy, Vivek" <vivek.kasireddy@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"richard.weiyang@...il.com" <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
"reddybalavignesh9979@...il.com" <reddybalavignesh9979@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] selftests: udmabuf: fix hugepage size calculation
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 06:47:54AM +0000, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote:
> This behavior is intentional given that a udmabuf is often created for memfd
> ranges that do not coincide with huge page (size) boundaries. In other words,
> udmabuf is not always populated with full huge pages. Instead, the ranges
> mostly align with regular 4K sized page boundaries (which means subpages of
> huge page), which is exactly what the tests verify.
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with dropping this patch. Thanks for your review.
Best regards, Zishun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists