Hi Ilpo, On 9/14/2023 2:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>>>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT >>>>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. >>>>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. >>>>> >>>>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> This does not look like stable material to me. >>> >>> I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: >>> >>> Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() >>> or remove this call entirely. >>> >>> Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it >>> (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires >>> this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. >>> >> >> Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed >> in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me >> that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a >> fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable >> I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the >> actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise >> this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: >> >> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" >> >> I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden >> the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd >> defer to your experience. > > I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how > to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id > (the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago > so I cannot easily find the link. I see, thank you. I was not aware of this custom. Reinette
