Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] selftests/mm: skip several tests when thp is not available

[Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 01:07:03PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 3/18/26 10:22, Chunyu Hu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:37:30AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:44:14 +0800 Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are several tests requires transprarent hugepages, when run on thp
> >>> disabled kernel such as realtime kernel, there will be false negative.
> >>> Mark those tests as skip when thp is not available.
> >>
> >> AI review asked some questions:
> >> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260317094419.1429259-1-chuhu%40redhat.com
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > Nice tool.
> >  
> > For question one. In guard-region test, collapse tests are for checking
> > collapse is denied when operating on guard region, not for checking
> > madvise(MADV_COLLAPSE) will fail when thp is setup to 'never with sysfs,
> > result is same, but it's a different test. Maybe we don't have strong
> > interest to test when thp is set to 'never' in this collapse test.
> > Do you perfer we let it run when thp is setup with 'never'?
> > 
> > For question two. In soft dirty test. Yes, test_mprotect skip logic has
> > similar issue when open failed. 'Bail out' would be shown. Maybe we
> > do this in other series or you prefer me to fix it in this series?
> 
> IMHO, that's something for another series (if at all).

OK. Then will not touch it here.

> 
> > 
> > For question three. Add buffer length check in write_file() helper and
> > check if written bytes equal expected bytes. It's easy to add a buffer
> > lenghth check and make it robust. It's not easy to do the partial
> > written check as that will make the helper more complex and need one
> > more parameter as expected written bytes. Maybe for such question, we
> > should do with other series, not in this one?
> 
> The AI brings up many things that are irrelevant in practice (in
> particular for tests). So I wouldn't worry about that. You are only
> moving code.

Yes. Then I don't change it here. Thanks.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
>