On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> If the flag is 0, no bits will be set. Hence we cant expect
> the resulting bitmap to have a higher value than what it
> was earlier.
>
> cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
> cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> index 83216c5..0109388 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> @@ -443,7 +443,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags)
> dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x%lx\n",
> __func__, pkey, rdpkey_reg());
> if (flags)
> - pkey_assert(rdpkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
> + pkey_assert(rdpkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg);
> dprintf1("END<---%s(%d, 0x%x)\n", __func__,
> pkey, flags);
> }
I'm not sure about this one. Did this cause a problem for you?
Why would you call this and ask no bits to be set?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
