[LTP] [PATCH] userfaultfd05: handle kernels rejecting WP feature in UFFDIO_API

[Li Wang]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 8:25 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > > Yes, for the discussion when to use I'd propose to *not* use kconfig
> Maybe to correct myself:
>
> *Use* kconfig if there is no other way to detect the functionality [1].
> We prefer to use kconfig detection, but do *not* use kconfig when there is
> another way to detect the functionality (e.g. via detecting functionality
> via
> /proc|sys) *and* and one of these three rules:
>
> > > * boot parameter to enable/disable exist
> * allow to disable via kernel boot parameter or via /sys file
> => because it can be disabled
> > > * check for tristate (functionality which can be compiled as module)
> => modul might not be available
> > > * kernel new functionality which is unlikely to be backported (use
> .min_kver instead)
> => probably faster
>
> > That sounds great to me.
>
> Thank you!
>
> > And, plus one more:
> >    * kconfig file may be unavailable for some reasons
>
> Yes, but we gave up on this (or at least Cyril) [1]:
>
>         As for the missing config there is 95 testcases that have
> needs_kconfigs
>         set at this moment and the number is growing steadily. I would
> argue
>         that you cannot run LTP without having config available. And the
> config
>         location is autodetected on common distributions as well.
>
> me: + at least 2 IMA tests require kconfig via tst_require_kconfigs().
>
> Therefore I accepted it and I'm not against using kconfig. But I would
> prefer
> using it only when it works reliably (100%).
>

Make sense!


> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/aV6DCbns02E4BCTj@yuki.lan/
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang