From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:35:09 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] mbind01: add more tests for MPOL_LOCAL In-Reply-To: References: <20210729132514.1699551-1-liwang@redhat.com> <20210729132514.1699551-3-liwang@redhat.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 10:03 AM Li Wang wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:20 PM Jan Stancek wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Li Wang wrote: >> >>> Signed-off-by: Li Wang >>> --- >>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/mbind/mbind01.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mbind/mbind01.c >>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mbind/mbind01.c >>> index d2cf13c8f..b5c1e948d 100644 >>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mbind/mbind01.c >>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mbind/mbind01.c >>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static struct bitmask *nodemask, *getnodemask, >>> *empty_nodemask; >>> static void test_default(unsigned int i, char *p); >>> static void test_none(unsigned int i, char *p); >>> static void test_invalid_nodemask(unsigned int i, char *p); >>> -static void check_policy_pref_no_target(int); >>> +static void check_policy_pref_or_local(int); >>> >>> struct test_case { >>> int policy; >>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static struct test_case tcase[] = { >>> .ret = 0, >>> .err = 0, >>> .test = test_none, >>> - .check_policy = check_policy_pref_no_target, >>> + .check_policy = check_policy_pref_or_local, >>> }, >>> { >>> POLICY_DESC(MPOL_PREFERRED), >>> @@ -101,6 +101,20 @@ static struct test_case tcase[] = { >>> .test = test_default, >>> .exp_nodemask = &nodemask, >>> }, >>> + { >>> + POLICY_DESC(MPOL_LOCAL), >>> + .ret = 0, >>> + .err = 0, >>> + .test = test_none, >>> + .exp_nodemask = &empty_nodemask, >>> + .check_policy = check_policy_pref_or_local, >>> >> >> This is a bit more permissive, it allows for MPOL_LOCAL to return also >> MPOL_PREFERRED. >> Shouldn't that still be treated as error? >> > > To strictly this should be an error. > > But I slightly think that it's acceptable to get 'MPOL_PREFERRED' on the > old > kernel (i.e. 4.18.0, v5.13) because 'MPOL_LOCAL' is not treated as a real > policy. > And the situation exists for quite a long time. > You're right, on older kernel it failed in similar way for MPOL_LOCAL as it failed for MPOL_PREFERRED on latest one. Acked-by: Jan Stancek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: