From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB31606D801 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=0E7qmYF3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=g/HGem5K DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Owner; bh=nGx2NwMDbqtPHMPNsh9EPN5476lLpafXJ5wg9iLlkU0=; b=0E7qmYF3iCRFQHVuzH2UW7xDQY Flk81IlZNp4gW8NcxhO76tI+hjnaSLrUzsb2uXpV6Nnb1mdNV3IkscKIIY4eEbtlYxl4VX4/lDydY gVNQjyEcny9D6XJTg3wymLppJkzPTG81j4pgN29syv41yRMEKmCwK/5RJ1wPDAuCKX7/a0LNqrvIU J1UbS6jSFbCD57firYUJY4KcqWZjSlJDDwwZjRpj7JwOZMrNHxQG71VJWLIvhhiVmmqalDfFPvmcv AkMx4adb4VSkys8RkBw9XcVZJTZ1fsRCWAjZ9FT/GXQ3BQSJrkNRZf6c3g4+rEeFZ7OLDdW/Ypq4s xI4lxQMQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xPKnK-0000000Ccjz-26xO; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:19:54 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xPKnJ-0000000CcjH-0oSK for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:19:53 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DE440B46; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:19:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C6B71F0089F; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:19:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793974792; bh=nGx2NwMDbqtPHMPNsh9EPN5476lLpafXJ5wg9iLlkU0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=g/HGem5KtJgc9W8TdrJwmhR17aQrSNJ/3WiUgE8cbYrwLqR+8CiOTS2uxScKtbGx1 2c6ZPsrzgjJk6QeVkM7SksMsqAMVHzIPtrjoCThNVLRzZkyXLs3fRlcuk/1ieJf6uA XgkSZqPTiFHZAjJQx4O1D77vN3Kr4sy7gUnO1Av7IfWWeiZWgd+rsuGRaN35Jjvajm JYPtGJ+oHjIv/8muL9XlSFCGAMWWSEVdAtfBIdf1rN+YqwnOkIcKs80n6KttGgm/cr w8WDikVb8t/E8NiEJJ8ZwKg2/Bo1m50TCIzF1c/Frj+iJVc2sPClcjdQanVGjc44Nj 04wzD72CKNRcw== From: Pratyush Yadav To: David Matlack Cc: Pasha Tatashin , Pratyush Yadav , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Baolin Wang , Christian Brauner , David Hildenbrand , Hugh Dickins , Jonathan Corbet , "Liam R. Howlett" , Lorenzo Stoakes , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Randy Dunlap , Samiullah Khawaja , Shuah Khan , Suren Baghdasaryan , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] selftests/liveupdate: Add a test for preserving tmpfs files In-Reply-To: (David Matlack's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2026 22:42:35 +0000") References: <20261103010216.3447716-1-dmatlack@google.com> <20261103010216.3447716-11-dmatlack@google.com> <2vxz1p90jzx4.fsf@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 15:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: <2vxzjymqhwjg.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "kexec" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Wed, Nov 04 2026, David Matlack wrote: > On 2026-11-04 02:37 PM, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >> On 11-04 17:59, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 03 2026, David Matlack wrote: >> > [...] >> > >> > Umm, no way I am reading all this... >> > >> > LLMs are great at generating tests, and I'm not saying there is no value >> > in this. It is just that this massive code dump is unreviewable by >> > humans. It is also unfair to the human reviewer because it took many >> > orders of magnitude less effort to _write_ them with an LLM. >> > >> > What do you all reckon we should do about this? Trust the LLM to get the >> > testing right? Do we give up human maintenance of tests entirely? Do we >> > do fault injection to test the tests themselves? >> > >> > Or do we make the tests smaller and more human reviewable? >> >> We need good test coverage, but I believe we can break this patch down >> into smaller changes where tested features are incrementally added. > > Agreed that it needs to be easier to review, but I'd like to keep the > coverage. Here's what I have in mind for v4: > > - Move the preserve-side checks that don't need a kexec into > liveupdate.c, like Pasha suggested in his earlier reply: which files > can be preserved (permissions, read-only and append-only files), the > frozen size while preserved, and unpreserve. Those then run with the > regular kselftests instead of only in vmtest.sh. > > - Split the rest of luo_tmpfs into several smaller commits that add the > tested features incrementally, e.g. one for the test infrastructure > and basic retrieve, one for the open() flags and creation checks, and > one for block accounting. That makes the series longer, but each > commit is a few hundred lines and can be reviewed on its own. > > It will still be long, but I think having the test coverage is worth it. Agreed. > > Does that sound reasonable? Sounds good. But I think practically speaking, it is not possible to review the tests as carefully as the main changes. I think I'll rely more on my LLM for those. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav