From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: lkp@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Matthew Wilcox \(Oracle\)" <willy@infradead.org>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd] cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.fail
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:52:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240423135225.GA195737@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240318-fegen-bezaubern-57b0a9c6f78b@brauner>
Hi,
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:49:03PM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > So I'd just remove that test. It's meaningless for pseudo fses.
> > 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.
@Matthew, any input on Cyril's question please?
Kind regards,
Petr
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, ltp@lists.linux.it, linux-mm@kvack.org,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd] cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.fail
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:52:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240423135225.GA195737@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240318-fegen-bezaubern-57b0a9c6f78b@brauner>
Hi,
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:49:03PM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > So I'd just remove that test. It's meaningless for pseudo fses.
> > 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.
@Matthew, any input on Cyril's question please?
Kind regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-23 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-15 8:16 [LTP] [linus:master] [pidfd] cb12fd8e0d: ltp.readahead01.fail kernel test robot
2024-03-15 8:16 ` kernel test robot
2024-03-15 13:42 ` [LTP] " Christian Brauner
2024-03-15 13:42 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-15 14:49 ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
2024-03-15 14:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2024-03-18 8:47 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-18 8:47 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-23 13:52 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2024-04-23 13:52 ` Petr Vorel
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=20240423135225.GA195737@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.