Hi! > Okay, and it even looks like the test caught the unintended change for > "unpopulated memory", but instead we decided to change the test to > expect the other return code ... because there was some confusion about > "zero page". > > Long story short: the test needs to be fixed. Will do, but we need the patch to land into some kernel version first so taht we can add the range of kernels where the kernel wrongly returns EFAULT. Or alternatively if you are going to backport this to stable trees we can revert the test change that expect -EFAULT so the test expects only -ENOENT. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@xxxxxxx
