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 88615C433FE for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584FD3CC695 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:42:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4583C130F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:42:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) (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-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15A2A2002C9 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:42:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C180A1FDC1; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:42:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1669660932; 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=GoJgjT9vROvzzIuVNAjV+S7ZYlJwIr8tehpNm6MCnfg=; b=Da1vifMyxkiOQeR58L9haYPBRpxgwzgN76fSi3XXm4dtOyKFynA6VY1e4LpCzvYzI6DoYJ W7ogeeU6zaWgo0zsljnNRl5k8VKUSgurYW/ylxmPzfXgLN8pyMvPsclFBQLqxdPRF8rVCV 4TVeCjm3SYwbkBbn8HhIqskspcCQ1ew= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1669660932; 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=GoJgjT9vROvzzIuVNAjV+S7ZYlJwIr8tehpNm6MCnfg=; b=XAKHQlC150K7IwDENr5wj9h8wCJDiQ49fKDqEleHF6eEchJJWri84M3RCwprS3nCvmw5i2 Ku1uWmedfhupGzAg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CCC41326E; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 1ASuHAQBhWOOKgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:42:12 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:42:09 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: References: <20221128111833.98937-1-david@redhat.com> <7f71a2c3-a66b-b442-3785-3e251ce2f781@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1 0/3] userfaultfd: Fix and remove compile-time TCONF handling 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 28.11.22 13:29, Martin Doucha wrote: > > On 28. 11. 22 12:57, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > If I remember correctly the reason for runtime check was ppc64le > > > missing userfaultfd minor fault support which needs to be check in runtime, > > > right? [1]. At least this is how I understand Martin's suggestion [2] to replace > > > compile time check with lapi. I'd state this reason at first commit message as > > > it's not obvious. > > The reason for runtime check is that the presence of the header file > > does not guarantee that the kernel supports UFFD API. The reason for > > LAPI is that we only care about actual kernel support, not build-time > > header files. Thx, agree. BTW I was thinking about compile time check #ifdef UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM, but that's the same as ifdef HAVE_LINUX_USERFAULTFD_H. > Right. Petr, do you still want a commit message state? I can just add to commit message of the first commit the reason Martin reported: ppc64le on kernel 5.14 does not seem to support userfaultfd minor fault. (no need to resent new version). Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp