Hi Ilpo, On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT >>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. >>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. >>> >>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> This does not look like stable material to me. > > I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: > > Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() > or remove this call entirely. > > Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it > (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires > this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. > Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd defer to your experience. Reinette
