From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
marcandre.lureau@redhat.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:47:36PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> > earlier versions?
>
> Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the
updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2. I
thought that would suffice which covers all the cases. That's why I dropped
it. Would that be Ok?
The changelog of the previous series had it because the selftest was added
only later.
Let me know, thanks,
- Joel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: joel at joelfernandes.org (Joel Fernandes)
Subject: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:47:36PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> > earlier versions?
>
> Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the
updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2. I
thought that would suffice which covers all the cases. That's why I dropped
it. Would that be Ok?
The changelog of the previous series had it because the selftest was added
only later.
Let me know, thanks,
- Joel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: joel@joelfernandes.org (Joel Fernandes)
Subject: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181126133536.p5glZEkWFXS8Vqbv9eVRBDBGoaUHC01lUdZ7YTaBijo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018@04:47:36PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018@04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> > earlier versions?
>
> Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the
updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2. I
thought that would suffice which covers all the cases. That's why I dropped
it. Would that be Ok?
The changelog of the previous series had it because the selftest was added
only later.
Let me know, thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-26 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-20 5:21 [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-20 5:21 ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-20 5:21 ` joel
2018-11-20 5:21 ` [PATCH -next 2/2] selftests/memfd: modify tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-20 5:21 ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-20 5:21 ` joel
2018-11-22 23:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-22 23:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-22 23:21 ` joel
2018-11-20 15:13 ` [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 15:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 15:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 15:13 ` luto
2018-11-20 18:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 18:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 18:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 18:39 ` joel
2018-11-20 20:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-11-20 20:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-11-20 20:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-11-20 20:07 ` sfr
2018-11-20 20:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 20:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 20:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 20:33 ` luto
2018-11-20 20:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 20:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 20:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 20:47 ` joel
2018-11-20 21:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 21:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 21:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-20 21:02 ` luto
2018-11-20 21:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 21:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 21:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 21:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-20 21:13 ` joel
2018-11-22 2:27 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-22 2:27 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-22 2:27 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-22 2:27 ` akpm
2018-11-22 3:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-22 3:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-22 3:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-22 3:25 ` luto
2018-11-22 23:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-22 23:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-22 23:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-22 23:09 ` joel
2018-11-25 0:42 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-25 0:42 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-25 0:42 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-25 0:42 ` akpm
2018-11-25 0:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-25 0:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-25 0:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-25 0:47 ` willy
2018-11-26 13:35 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2018-11-26 13:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-26 13:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-26 13:35 ` joel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181126133536.GB242510@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=khalid.aziz@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.