On 07/17/2018 06:49 AM, 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.
...
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c
> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags)
> dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x"PKEY_REG_FMT"\n",
> __func__, pkey, read_pkey_reg());
> if (flags)
> - pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
> + pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg);
> dprintf1("END<---%s(%d, 0x%x)\n", __func__,
> pkey, flags);
> }
I know these are just selftests, but this change makes zero sense
without the context from how powerpc works. It's also totally
non-obvious from the patch itself what is going on, even though I
specifically called this out in a previous review.
Please add a comment here that either specifically calls out powerpc or
talks about "an architecture that does this ..."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
