From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED6221C160; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 17:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755019204; cv=none; b=J1jnOVIER83hiZXzvojiW39pgRGl4T76+E9OIXjQloASqK8sRJFejFZPjbvmDn6BgdIsq2r7Y6GPx6Tploc9lMQPiRYLzMeXa+1Y8iinpj+P5uA33Di6rcGzwGZ7BCq1Lb2HDe42Sv0zb48uzFNx7ltYN6e2GyClKCZlaDTGH9Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755019204; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mAC0HElfoi9Vm0ysz8JFlbF2hmtehTuzsx2QwPcA3lw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ofDhWb1iBBUb7xNkFmtTH84w7SMqUfeVA2qcL5A+mnSjNM2sAOJhkERo5h1LC469bmtPOD7Lfgly/g1ol25Vdm4eme/b7je9rrA3BwpFYSUAzEXyXVc+Np2zZ3dY2Y90WKnZzELddWM88CcrzBwibRj5DcDUzzr/ZwPg3UnVceY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gM6qhym/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gM6qhym/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EFC5C4CEF0; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 17:20:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755019203; bh=mAC0HElfoi9Vm0ysz8JFlbF2hmtehTuzsx2QwPcA3lw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gM6qhym/4a3Wazw/nb45u6yf19ToNI2AupnrQWSMRSud2rXFjWscjBM03GnmGuaLC EsSxGSxYbn6bxLR4A2ABjxDsa+pL4ZQhGqWV2JTXluMQdvNFq8NiSxxMtND5gTwRzu /DCJj7O5o5G9jFdLQ4APf0J10q1OuZDvhbtv2qaNCwxZni62qKDkKYUKeAtL4Ntygo 2GE778oQcigzTGsrra/5sdbfnFvQWrDutwQCehovhpDQS2bzt+lr/jH/3RezA9e+eI SRpDHftSUOViKMiuPwCw9CW9uD00n3W1C88LhfSiOfeftXXkcznJQN+SXh6ZICgtQT cT+O7nxy008Ag== From: SeongJae Park To: Sang-Heon Jeon Cc: SeongJae Park , Alexandre Ghiti , Shuah Khan , Andrew Morton , Enze Li , damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/damon: fix damon selftests by installing _common.sh Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:20:01 -0700 Message-Id: <20250812172001.57104-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 22:27:00 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > Hello, Alexandre > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 9:32 PM Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > > > > Hello, Alexandre > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 5:13 PM Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > > > > > > _common.sh was recently introduced but is not installed and then > > > triggers an error when trying to run the damon selftests: > > > > > > selftests: damon: sysfs.sh > > > ./sysfs.sh: line 4: _common.sh: No such file or directory > > > > > > Install this file to avoid this error. > > > > I tried to reproduce those error with my vm environment but I failed; > > with my workaround test method, it doesn't exist. > > If you're okay, could you please tell me line by line how you execute > > tests in what environment? > > I'm also struggling with the test environment, as well. > > I succeeded to reproduce and also check that this patch removes those errors. > > > > Fixes: 511914506d19 ("selftests/damon: introduce _common.sh to host shared function") > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti > > > --- > > Tested-by: Sang-Heon Jeon Thank you, Sang-Heon :) [...] > > > --- > > > base-commit: 2754d549af31f8f029f02d02cd8e574676229b3d > > > > Does this commit exist in `mm-new` or `damon-next`? I failed to setup > > the same base-commit environment. > > However, I'm still not sure that this patch is in the correct > baseline. maybe it will not cause any problems with the merge > though... but I'm not sure. So I didn't add a reviewed-by tag. I think unclear baseline of a patch shouldn't be a blocker of Reviewed-by tags. Since most DAMON patches are recommended to use mm-new[1], as long as the patch can cleanly applied on latest mm-new and you don't see anything wrong, I think you can assume it is based on mm-new. [1] https://origin.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/mm/damon/maintainer-profile.html#scm-trees Thanks, SJ [...]