From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41VVHJ3pT5zF3HZ for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 05:10:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w6HIx6Ge046457 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:10:50 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2k9mn9v6vp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:10:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:10:47 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:10:36 -0700 From: Ram Pai To: Dave Hansen Cc: shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mhocko@kernel.org, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, fweimer@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.de, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 19/24] selftests/vm: associate key on a mapped page and detect access violation Reply-To: Ram Pai References: <1528937115-10132-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1528937115-10132-20-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <048b1de9-85f8-22ff-a31a-b06a382769bb@intel.com> <20180717161332.GH5790@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20180717191036.GI5790@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:56:08AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 07/17/2018 09:13 AM, Ram Pai wrote: > > I have incorporated almost all of your comments. But there are some > > comments that take some effort to implement. Shall we get the patches > > merged in the current form? This code has been sitting out for a while. > > > > In the current form its tested and works on powerpc and on x86, and > > incorporates about 95% of your suggestions. The rest I will take care > > as we go. > > What constitutes the remaining 5%? Mostly your comments on code-organization in the signal handler. There are still some #if defined(__i386__) ..... Can be cleaned up and abstracted further. Also your questions on some of the code changes, the rationale for which is not obvious. Will help to spinkle in some descriptive comments there. Have fixed up a lot of codying style issues. But there could till be a few that may spew warning by checkpatch.pl. There are no functional issues AFAICT. RP