On 02/11/2023 11:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 11/2/23 4:45 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 21/08/2023 15:15, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +int init_uffd(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
>>> +
>>> + uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY);
>>> + if (uffd == -1)
>>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("uffd syscall failed\n");
>>> +
>>> + uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
>>> + uffdio_api.features = UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED | UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC |
>>> + UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM;
>>> + if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api))
>>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("UFFDIO_API\n");
>>> +
>>> + if (!(uffdio_api.api & UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP) ||
>>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED) ||
>>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC) ||
>>> + !(uffdio_api.features & UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM))
>>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("UFFDIO_API error %llu\n", uffdio_api.api);
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've just noticed that this fails on arm64 because the required features are not
>> available. It's common practice to skip instead of fail for this sort of
>> condition (and that's how all the other uffd tests work). The current fail
>> approach creates noise in our CI.
>>
>> I see this is already in mm-stable so perhaps we can add a patch to fix on top?
> Yeah, we can add a patch to skip all the tests instead of failing here. Let
> me send a patch this week.
Thats great - thanks for the fast response!
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>
