On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:51:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 23-03-20 11:41:59, Rafael Aquini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:12:56PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 23-03-20 11:02:59, Rafael Aquini wrote: > [...] > > > > The selftest also checks the kernel visible effect, via > > > > /proc/kpageflags, and that's where it fails after 9c4e6b1a7027f. > > > > > > I really fail to see your point. Even if you are right that the self > > > test is somehow evaluating the kernel implementation which I am not sure > > > is the scope of the selft thest but anyway. The mere fact that the > > > kernel test fails on a perfectly valid change should just suggest that > > > the test is leading to false positives and therefore should be fixed. > > > Your proposed fix is simply suboptimal because it relies on yet another > > > side effect which might change anytime in the future and still lead to a > > > correctly behaving kernel. See my point? > > > > > > > OK, I concede your point on the bogusness of checking the page flags in > > this particular test and expect certain valuse there, given that no other > > selftest seems to be doing that level of inner kenrel detail scrutiny. > > > > I'll repost this fix suggestion getting rif of those related > > checkpoints. > > Here is what I have after I had to context switch to something else > before finishing it. Feel free to reuse if you feel like. It is likely > to not even compile. > I'm OK with it, if you want to go ahead and do the kill. Thanks -- Rafael
