From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31C5C001CC for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A52A3CFBB2 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB213CD2A0 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:42 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.131; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2A3200ACA for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 953B520DE9; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1713379118; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zIo1xnOFUTP6Sf081pxaZ7JmH4G9IZKOHf97SrZyZ4I=; b=QoLwqNZ+fsrmOhyWdJue54IoWnZzuf82Fhxg9rVKSV3KqLA0j9EHtntTtDPrytxvVe27Xh hezwv1idNn+RuUD/hykuyLi3hK/Q4OIdpghs88NAOptRrxZQOyouH5rbIZboxC8NhDy9bL +trMSqM06Xf93WkhIwVovAlG83gdSPQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1713379118; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zIo1xnOFUTP6Sf081pxaZ7JmH4G9IZKOHf97SrZyZ4I=; b=GQR3xnn/9tp2SS0ChQf9CLV5/9+BsjJlZDTVqG0lrMRsufYascaHmtBYZsQLv8FkcuATMm mKXzi81942Cc9uCg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1713379118; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zIo1xnOFUTP6Sf081pxaZ7JmH4G9IZKOHf97SrZyZ4I=; b=QoLwqNZ+fsrmOhyWdJue54IoWnZzuf82Fhxg9rVKSV3KqLA0j9EHtntTtDPrytxvVe27Xh hezwv1idNn+RuUD/hykuyLi3hK/Q4OIdpghs88NAOptRrxZQOyouH5rbIZboxC8NhDy9bL +trMSqM06Xf93WkhIwVovAlG83gdSPQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1713379118; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zIo1xnOFUTP6Sf081pxaZ7JmH4G9IZKOHf97SrZyZ4I=; b=GQR3xnn/9tp2SS0ChQf9CLV5/9+BsjJlZDTVqG0lrMRsufYascaHmtBYZsQLv8FkcuATMm mKXzi81942Cc9uCg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C1C81384C; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([10.150.64.162]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id IFCnGC4XIGbjJgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:38:38 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:32 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20240417183832.GD35911@pevik> References: <20240417090222.707302-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20240417100611.GA713385@pevik> <20240417122418.GB727397@pevik> <20240417133749.GA4484@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.999]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns,suse.cz:replyto]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] libswap: Change TWARN message to TINFO X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > Changing it to {SAFE_,}MAKE_SWAPFILE_SIZE() on all places would mean we don't need > > {SAFE_,}MAKE_SWAPFILE_BLKS() at all. Therefore I think this check should be > > suppressed to TINFO. Other option is to use high enough value (more blocks) > > (not sure if using really small swap file makes sense anyway). > I do not think that we should use too small swap file even for the case > where we try to detect if swapfiles are supported. Currently it seems > that kernel accepts swapfiles smaller than page size, but it may also > start rejecting them with EINVAL in the future. > So I would keep the warning and rather tried to fix all the parts where > we attempt to create a swapfile smaller than page size. +1, setting "changes requested", I'll send v2 with higher number of blocks to fix this. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp