Linux Test Project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] ioctl_pidfd06: Update kernel version
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:59:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260424095900.GA500158@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAASaF6xiLDa_uOKkG2=aVhysnbKNCT-H_PiFYFt5=889g1K74Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

first, thanks for a review!

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 9:13 AM Li Wang <li.wang@linux.dev> wrote:

> > > > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_pidfd06.c
> > > > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_pidfd06.c
> > > > > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> > > > >   if (!ioctl_pidfd_info_exit_supported())
> > > > >           tst_brk(TCONF, "PIDFD_INFO_EXIT is not supported by ioctl()");

> > > > > - if (tst_kvercmp(7, 0, 0) >= 0)
> > > > > + if (tst_kvercmp(6, 18, 14) >= 0)

> > > > What will happen if this test is run on kernel range: v6.19.0 ~ v6.19.9?

> > > FYI I haven't tested that, but it should fail on 6.18.0..v6.18.13 and on
> > > v6.19.0..v6.19.9 due missing backport.

> > > I'd assume that's correct, because on stable/LTS we should IMHO be more strict
> > > to ensure it behaves as expected. WDYT?

> > Hmm, maybe that's acceptable. Or just:

> >   if ((tst_kvercmp(6, 18, 14) == 0 ||
'==' I guess you mean '>=', this would not work on v6.18.15..v6.18.24

> >        tst_kvercmp(6, 19, 10) == 0) ||
'==': although 6.19.14 is EOL, that might change.

> >        tst_kvercmp(7, 0, 0) >= 0)

Before sending I was thinking about:

if ((tst_kvercmp(6, 19, 10) >= 0) ||
    (tst_kvercmp(6, 18, 14) >= 0 && tst_kvercmp(6, 19, 0) < 0)

Because the only version which should be avoided is v6.19.0..v6.19.9.
I can send v2.

> > And it'd be great to have Jan's comments, he is an expert in
> > the kernel maintenance area:).

> ehm, not sure about that :-).

> This is change in error code, we didn't treat previous value as error for older
> releases, so why do that now? I don't see it covered in man pages (yet),
> so why be strict?

> I think the patch should either use more specific version ranges or
> allow both errnos on versions <= 7.0.0.

FYI Wei's approach was not to be strict:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20260424060543.462475-1-pvorel@suse.cz/

I did not supersede it (somebody did), feel free to ack this approach (and I
will not send v2).

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-04-24  9:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-24  6:05 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] ioctl_pidfd06: Update kernel version Petr Vorel
2026-04-24  6:21 ` Li Wang
2026-04-24  6:31   ` Petr Vorel
2026-04-24  7:07     ` Li Wang
2026-04-24  7:33       ` Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-04-24  8:03         ` Wei Gao via ltp
2026-04-24  9:59         ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2026-04-24  8:09 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-04-24 10:01   ` Petr Vorel
2026-04-24 10:02     ` Petr Vorel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260424095900.GA500158@pevik \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox