From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:38038 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728130AbeKIVZz (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:25:55 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id d19so974906qkg.5 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:45:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1541763936.3280758.1571224480.76F1EF1C@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Rafael David Tinoco To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix and merge proc-self-map-file tests In-Reply-To: <20181109114123.GK13195@uranus.lan> References: <20181108111105.GC13195@uranus.lan> <20181109113036.21512-1-rafael.tinoco@linaro.org> <20181109114123.GK13195@uranus.lan> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 09:45:36 -0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > > Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in > > testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test > > mapping virtual address 0. > > > > Lowest virtual address for user space mapping in other architectures, > > like arm, is *at least* *(PAGE_SIZE * 2) and NULL hint does not > > guarantee that when MAP_FIXED flag, important to this test, is given. > > This patch also fixes this issue in remaining test. > > > > Link: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3782 > > Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco > > Wait, Rafael. But we will loose the test of mapping virtual address 0 > then. I though you would move testing of virtual address 0 into > a separate testcase. I mean testing of first page was a positive > side effect of the former Alexey's patch, so we definitely should > keep it on x86 at least. Gimme some time I'll try to address it > today evening or tomorrow. I think this way everybody will be > happy: procfs get passed on arm32 and x86 will still have first > page testing. Ohh, my understanding was that this was going to be addressed in some other test, like what you said.. I did not understand you wanted me to create a test for it altogether, my bad. I can do it if you want, let me know, pls. Thanks!