From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>,
ltp@lists.linux.it, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] readahead01: pass on pidfd
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:40:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240515134025.GA225100@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240515132151.GA557949@google.com>
Hi Lee,
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> > Linux kernel added pidfs via commit b5683a37c881 in v6.9-rc1
> > release. This patchset ignores readahead request instead of
> > returning EINVAL, so mark the test pass.
> > https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2403.2/00762.html
> > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c
> > index d4b3f306f..aed8e7f31 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c
> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static void test_invalid_fd(struct tst_fd *fd)
> > case TST_FD_MEMFD:
> > case TST_FD_MEMFD_SECRET:
> > case TST_FD_PROC_MAPS:
> > + case TST_FD_PIDFD:
> > return;
> > default:
> > break;
> Any movement on this?
Back to Christian Brauner discussing with Cyril Hrubis [1]
> Wouldn't it make more sense to actually return EINVAL instead of
> ignoring the request if readahead() is not implemented?
It would change the return value for a whole bunch of stuff. I'm not
sure that wouldn't cause regressions but is in any case a question for
the readahead maintainers. For now I'd just remove that test for pidfds
imho.
That's why I would like to get ack / oppinion of the readahead maintainers.
I already asked them under this patch.
@Andrew gently ping.
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240318-fegen-bezaubern-57b0a9c6f78b@brauner/
Below the patch I have asked kernel maintainers to ack if
> Android pre-submit CI testing is failing due to the new unconditional
> enable of PIDFD. I believe this patch is required in order to bring it
> back to a passing state.
parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-15 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20240515132151.GA557949@google.com>]
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=20240515134025.GA225100@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=jencce.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=lee@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).