* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Indeed, you are right - I somehow mis-read it as potentially segfaulting on fixed kernels as well... Will look at applying this after the merge window. Thanks, Ingo -- 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>