On 23/04/2024 09:44, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 4/23/24 1:24 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 22/04/2024 10:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 19.04.24 09:43, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>> Previously soft-dirty was unconditionally exiting with success, even if >>>> one of it's testcases failed. Let's fix that so that failure can be >>>> reported to automated systems properly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! > >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c >>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c >>>> index 7dbfa53d93a0..bdfa5d085f00 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c >>>> @@ -209,5 +209,5 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >>>> >>>> close(pagemap_fd); >>>> >>>> - return ksft_exit_pass(); >>>> + ksft_finished(); >>>> } >>>> -- >>>> 2.25.1 >>>> >>> >>> Guess that makes sense independent of all the other stuff? >> >> Yes definitely. What's the process here? Do I need to re-post as a stand-alone >> patch? Or perhaps, Shuah, you could take this into your tree as is? > She can. But if she misses it or you want to post v2 of this current > series, you can just send this one separately. Usually I try to send > separate patches for trivial and discussion required patches so that there > isn't confusion of this kind. Thanks - I'll do that. > >> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >
