From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B76CEC25B78 for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 09:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B513D0530 for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:38:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C17E3CFE14 for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:38:01 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DF5D100034D for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:38:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FBB5201FB; Tue, 28 May 2024 09:37:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1716889078; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n5P+xCuf+QeNaU0n+RSvhotUahJyjua8UY25Hs0CTy8=; b=R/wwXdr2xsyc+Q7QxBAgcc9MVCqOwwkfWpG3Hf3f7zQThqBLhmZwKywC47mW8pXZ9V59W2 UzmDce1HhsF/GO4nKq7hR7VOrgoaSu8V4MOB5vxhtapAcR7HPzA5jarVh6hCB2tdx9LaJT F4QRzLz8hBUZlX4ASl23DtxUY+2KOCI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1716889078; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n5P+xCuf+QeNaU0n+RSvhotUahJyjua8UY25Hs0CTy8=; b=RUEjXb7raEdFmPiEWA8CLdqH1RhPcGsOSRBD6bGHjBbS6Zjeud1JjWbpcOu+0yE9GZDW/J MePo2e2KxHM16xCg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1716889078; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n5P+xCuf+QeNaU0n+RSvhotUahJyjua8UY25Hs0CTy8=; b=R/wwXdr2xsyc+Q7QxBAgcc9MVCqOwwkfWpG3Hf3f7zQThqBLhmZwKywC47mW8pXZ9V59W2 UzmDce1HhsF/GO4nKq7hR7VOrgoaSu8V4MOB5vxhtapAcR7HPzA5jarVh6hCB2tdx9LaJT F4QRzLz8hBUZlX4ASl23DtxUY+2KOCI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1716889078; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n5P+xCuf+QeNaU0n+RSvhotUahJyjua8UY25Hs0CTy8=; b=RUEjXb7raEdFmPiEWA8CLdqH1RhPcGsOSRBD6bGHjBbS6Zjeud1JjWbpcOu+0yE9GZDW/J MePo2e2KxHM16xCg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1988713A5D; Tue, 28 May 2024 09:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id aFEXBPalVWb4YwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 28 May 2024 09:37:58 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:37:52 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Martin Doucha Message-ID: <20240528093752.GA408250@pevik> References: <20240527135718.29451-1-mdoucha@suse.cz> <20240527223551.GA374567@pevik> <8774370a-d6c7-42f6-a135-57fdf23032d9@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8774370a-d6c7-42f6-a135-57fdf23032d9@suse.cz> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:replyto]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] kvm_pagefault01: Do not write into tdp_mmu sysfile X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On 28. 05. 24 0:35, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > + > > > + if (read_bool_sys_param(TDP_MMU_SYSFILE) > 0) > > > + tst_res(TINFO, "tdp_mmu is enabled, beware of false negatives"); > > Wouldn't it be better to add "WARNING:" to make it more visible? > > tst_res(TINFO, "WARNING: tdp_mmu is enabled, beware of false negatives"); > > (if you agree, I can change it before merge) > I thought about it for a while and I see good reasons for both TINFO and > TWARN. It shouldn't matter for our tests because tdp_mmu defaults to off on > SLE-15SP4 and SLE-15SP5. If other reviewers agree, feel free to change it to > TWARN. I slightly prefer tst_res(TINFO, "WARNING: ...", than TWARN. Although false negative is serious, still failing the test based on suspicion of false positives is not good. @Li, @Jan, @Metan: any opinion on it? Also, I send a patch to add TINFO_WARN flag (yeah, ugly name) to print TINFO but slightly more visible due the color. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/list/?series=408394&state=* Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp