From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-f195.google.com ([209.85.167.195]:40317 "EHLO mail-oi1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726274AbeKHURL (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:17:11 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f195.google.com with SMTP id u130-v6so16511395oie.7 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-f43.google.com (mail-ot1-f43.google.com. [209.85.210.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t132-v6sm1388457oih.37.2018.11.08.02.42.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:42:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 81so17721264otj.2 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:42:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181015172140.GJ2401@uranus.lan> References: <20181011184359.15627-1-rafael.tinoco@linaro.org> <20181011205601.GA32757@avx2> <20181011210256.GE2401@uranus.lan> <20181011213006.GA13485@avx2> <20181011220009.GF2401@uranus.lan> <52504bd5-b4ed-518b-f748-c634172c6c68@linaro.org> <20181015172140.GJ2401@uranus.lan> From: Rafael David Tinoco Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:41:46 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix proc-self-map-files selftest for arm To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Rafael David Tinoco , Alexey Dobriyan , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 01:55:14PM -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: >> That is what I also had in mind, thus the patch. I just realized we had >> another issue on LKFT (our functional tests tool) for >> proc-self-map-files-001.c. Test 001 does pretty much the same as 002, but >> without the MAP_FIXED mmap flag. >> >> Is it okay to consolidate both tests into just 1, and focus in checking >> procfs numbers conversion only, rather than if mapping 0 is allowed or not ? >> Can I send a v2 with that in mind ? > > As to me -- yes, I would move zero page testing to a separate memory testcase. > But since Alexey is the former author of the tests better wait for his opinion. Alexey, would you care if we turn those 2 tests into 1, taking care of the zero page testing elsewhere ? Would you mind if I send out a patch for that ?