On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Should print on success: >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32 >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf773f000 >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f773f000, f7740000] -> [a000000, a001000] >> [OK] >> Or segfault if landing was bad (before patches): >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32 >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf774f000 >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f774f000, f7750000] -> [a000000, a001000] >> Segmentation fault (core dumped) > > So I still think that generating potential segfaults is not a proper way to test a > new feature. How are we supposed to tell the feature still works? I realize that > glibc is a problem here - but that doesn't really change the QA equation: we are > adding new kernel code to help essentially a single application out of tens of > thousands of applications. > > At minimum we should have a robust testcase ... I think it's robust enough. It will print "[OK]" and exit with 0 on success and it will crash on failure. The latter should cause make run_tests to fail reliably. There are some test cases in there that can't avoid crashing on failure unless they were to fork, fail in a child, and then print some text in the parent. That seems like it would be more work than it's worth. --Andy -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>