Hello Mike, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:00:46PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> If userfaultfd runs on a system that doesn't support UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for >> shared memory, it currently ends with error code 1 which indicates test >> failure: >> >> # ./userfaultfd shmem 10 10 >> nr_pages: 160, nr_pages_per_cpu: 80 >> bounces: 9, mode: rnd poll, unexpected missing ioctl for anon memory >> # echo $? >> 1 >> >> Change userfaultfd_zeropage_test() to return KSFT_SKIP to indicate that >> the test is being skipped. > > I took a deeper look at what userfaultfd_zeropage_test() does and, > apparently, I've mislead you. The test checks if the range has > UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE and verifies that it works if yes; otherwise the test > verifies that EINVAL is returned. > > Can you please check if the patch below works in your environment? > > From 7a34c84c0461b5073742275638c44b6535d19166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:44:19 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] userfaultfd: selftest: make supported range ioctl > verification more robust > > When userfaultfd tests runs on older kernel that does not support > UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for shared memory it fails at the ioctl verification. > > Split out the verification that supported ioctls are superset of the > expected ioctls and relax the checks for UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for shared memory > areas. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) I'm sorry to take this long to respond, I was only able to get back to this today. Your patch does solve my problem. Thank you very much! It has a trivial conflict in the second hunk with patch 3 in my series. Should I repost the series with your patch in place of patch 4? -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center
