From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes 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 Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> References: <20181121070658.011d576d@canb.auug.org.au> <469B80CB-D982-4802-A81D-95AC493D7E87@amacapital.net> <20181120204710.GB22801@google.com> <20181120211335.GC22801@google.com> <20181121182701.0d8a775fda6af1f8d2be8f25@linux-foundation.org> <20181122230906.GA198127@google.com> <20181124164229.89c670b6e7a3530ef7b0a40c@linux-foundation.org> <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Stephen Rothwell , LKML , Hugh Dickins , Jann Horn , Khalid Aziz , Linux API , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Linux-MM , marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, Mike Kravetz , Shuah Khan List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.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 The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2.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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joel at joelfernandes.org (Joel Fernandes) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800 Subject: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20181121070658.011d576d@canb.auug.org.au> <469B80CB-D982-4802-A81D-95AC493D7E87@amacapital.net> <20181120204710.GB22801@google.com> <20181120211335.GC22801@google.com> <20181121182701.0d8a775fda6af1f8d2be8f25@linux-foundation.org> <20181122230906.GA198127@google.com> <20181124164229.89c670b6e7a3530ef7b0a40c@linux-foundation.org> <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joel@joelfernandes.org (Joel Fernandes) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:35:36 -0800 Subject: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust In-Reply-To: <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20181121070658.011d576d@canb.auug.org.au> <469B80CB-D982-4802-A81D-95AC493D7E87@amacapital.net> <20181120204710.GB22801@google.com> <20181120211335.GC22801@google.com> <20181121182701.0d8a775fda6af1f8d2be8f25@linux-foundation.org> <20181122230906.GA198127@google.com> <20181124164229.89c670b6e7a3530ef7b0a40c@linux-foundation.org> <20181125004736.GA3065@bombadil.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20181126133536.GB242510@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20181126133536.p5glZEkWFXS8Vqbv9eVRBDBGoaUHC01lUdZ7YTaBijo@z> 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