[LTP] [PATCH] readahead01: pass on pidfd
Petr Vorel
pvorel@suse.cz
Wed May 15 15:40:25 CEST 2024
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@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 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.
More information about the ltp
mailing list