From: Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] mem/min_free_kbytes: Fix incorrect pass/fail accounting
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:38:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c76d95ec-6598-450e-8601-b737d3cba0a8@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a4fd5b9.a1b3dc3f.1e550b.63db@mx.google.com>
On 09/07/26 10:39 pm, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> Hi Sachin,
>
> I think with this patch we are working around the problem. Which is..
> the test is badly written and it needs a complete refactoring, since
> it seems like a mix of old and new API.
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for the detailed review.
You are right — the original patch was a workaround rather than a proper
fix. The test was mixing old bare-fork patterns with the newer LTP API,
and patching around the symptom without addressing the structural problem
was the wrong approach.
I will rework the patch as a full refactor addressing all points raised:
1. Extract a set_min_free_kbytes() helper that consolidates the three
tune-selection cases using a switch statement and MIN() as suggested,
replacing the open-coded if/else if/else block in test_tune().
2. Replace all bare fork() calls with SAFE_FORK() throughout. The
eatup_mem children in test_tune() are still waited with SAFE_WAITPID
and their exit status is still inspected per-policy, because
overcommit_policy=1 expects SIGKILL — delegating those to
tst_reap_children() would incorrectly produce TBROK on a valid
outcome.
3. Drop the SAFE_WAITPID on the monitor child and its status check
from min_free_kbytes_test() entirely. The monitor child reports its
own TPASS/TFAIL via tst_res() and always exits 0, so the framework's
tst_reap_children() (called automatically after test_all returns)
handles it correctly without any duplicate logic in the test.
4. Revise the commit message to be short and self-explanatory without
re-narrating the diff.
I will send a v3 with the changes included.
--
Thanks
- Sachin
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-10 5:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-09 4:13 [LTP] [PATCH v2] mem/min_free_kbytes: Fix incorrect pass/fail accounting Sachin Sant
2026-07-09 6:52 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-07-09 17:09 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] " Andrea Cervesato via ltp
2026-07-10 5:08 ` Sachin Sant [this message]
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=c76d95ec-6598-450e-8601-b737d3cba0a8@linux.ibm.com \
--to=sachinp@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrea.cervesato@suse.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