Hi Lee, > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Murphy Zhou wrote: > > Linux kernel added pidfs via commit b5683a37c881 in v6.9-rc1 > > release. This patchset ignores readahead request instead of > > returning EINVAL, so mark the test pass. > > https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2403.2/00762.html > > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c > > index d4b3f306f..aed8e7f31 100644 > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead01.c > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static void test_invalid_fd(struct tst_fd *fd) > > case TST_FD_MEMFD: > > case TST_FD_MEMFD_SECRET: > > case TST_FD_PROC_MAPS: > > + case TST_FD_PIDFD: > > return; > > default: > > break; > Any movement on this? Back to Christian Brauner discussing with Cyril Hrubis [1] > Wouldn't it make more sense to actually return EINVAL instead of > ignoring the request if readahead() is not implemented? It would change the return value for a whole bunch of stuff. I'm not sure that wouldn't cause regressions but is in any case a question for the readahead maintainers. For now I'd just remove that test for pidfds imho. That's why I would like to get ack / oppinion of the readahead maintainers. I already asked them under this patch. @Andrew gently ping. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240318-fegen-bezaubern-57b0a9c6f78b@brauner/ Below the patch I have asked kernel maintainers to ack if > Android pre-submit CI testing is failing due to the new unconditional > enable of PIDFD. I believe this patch is required in order to bring it > back to a passing state.
