All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com
To: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] fanotify20: Skip FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID test on v7.2+
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:37:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260617073757.3983-1-linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260616210448.12175-2-anonymemeow@gmail.com>

Hi AnonymeMeow,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, AnonymeMeow wrote:
> fanotify20: Skip FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID test on v7.2+

--- [PATCH 1/5] ---

> +	if (tst_kvercmp(7, 2, 0) >= 0)
> +		tst_brk(TCONF, "FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID is supported "
> +			       "since v7.2, skipping test");

tst_brk(TCONF) in setup aborts ALL test cases. The second test case
(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME expected to
succeed) is still valid on v7.2+ but will never run.

Should this be a per-test-case skip instead, so that only the EINVAL
case is skipped on v7.2+?

--- [PATCH 4/5] ---

> fanotify21: Add test variants for FAN_REPORT_TID

> +	if (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD) {
> +		fanotify_fd = -1;
> +		thread_pidfd_unsupported = fanotify_init_flags_supported_on_fs(
> +			FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID, ".");
> +		if (thread_pidfd_unsupported)
> +			return;
> +		init_flags |= FAN_REPORT_TID;
> +	}

FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with FAN_REPORT_TID is a v7.2 feature and
v7.2 has not been released yet (latest stable is v7.1). Per LTP
convention, tests exercising unreleased kernel features need a
[STAGING] subject prefix and should go into runtest/staging until
the kernel release is finalized.

This applies to patches 4/5 and 5/5 which add FAN_REPORT_TID variant
coverage.

Verdict - Needs revision

Pre-existing issues (not introduced by this series):

- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile: per-target CFLAGS is
  placed before testcases.mk instead of between the two includes.
- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c: `fanotify_fd` is
  initialized to 0 (implicit) and the cleanup guard uses `>= 0`
  instead of the LTP-conventional `-1` init + `!= -1` guard.

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-17  7:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-16 21:04 [LTP] [PATCH v2 0/5] fanotify: update pidfd tests for FAN_REPORT_TID AnonymeMeow
2026-06-16 21:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/5] fanotify20: Skip FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID test on v7.2+ AnonymeMeow
2026-06-17  7:37   ` linuxtestproject.agent [this message]
2026-06-17 15:33   ` Jan Kara
2026-06-16 21:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/5] fanotify21: Stop relying on exited child for pidfd error AnonymeMeow
2026-06-16 21:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/5] fanotify21: Simplify read_pidfd_fdinfo() AnonymeMeow
2026-06-16 21:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/5] fanotify21: Add test variants for FAN_REPORT_TID AnonymeMeow
2026-06-16 21:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 5/5] fanotify21: Add FAN_REPORT_TID pidfd coverage AnonymeMeow
2026-06-17 15:04   ` Jan Kara

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=20260617073757.3983-1-linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com \
    --to=linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com \
    --cc=anonymemeow@gmail.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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.