tun simply advances iov_iter when it needs to pad virtio header,
which leaves the garbage in the buffer as is. This will become
especially problematic when tun starts to allow enabling the hash
reporting feature; even if the feature is enabled, the packet may lack a
hash value and may contain a hol
On 2025/02/14 0:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 06:23:55PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2025/02/13 16:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Commit log needs some work.
So my understanding is, this patch does not do much functionally,
but makes adding the hash feature easier. O
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
top level of the test, e.g.:
# test_number: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:103
lib/printf_kunit.c:167: vsnprintf(buf, 256, "%#-12x", ...) wrote '0x1234abcd
', expected '0x1234abce '
# test_number: EXP
Move all tests into `printf_test_cases`. This gives us nicer output in
the event of a failure.
Combine `plain_format` and `plain_hash` into `hash_pointer` since
they're testing the same scenario.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein
---
lib/tests/printf_kunit.c | 331 +---
Convert the printf() self-test to a KUnit test.
In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
test case.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein
---
Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst | 4 +-
MAINTAINE
This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
being bitmap and scanf), the rest having been converted to KUnit.
I tested this using:
$ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 printf
I have also sent out a series converting scanf[0].
Link:
http
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:47 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > > > I have just quickly tested this
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > I have just quickly tested this before leaving for a week.
> > > And I am fine with the result.
> >
Than
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 04:30:32PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> The fault object was designed exclusively for hwpt's IO page faults (PRI).
> But its queue implementation can be reused for other purposes too, such as
> hardware IRQ and event injections to user space.
>
> Meanwhile, a fault object h
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 04:30:30PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> There is no need to keep them in the header. The vEVENTQ version of these
> two functions will turn out to be a different implementation and will not
> share with this fault version. Thus, move them out of the header.
>
> Signed-off-b
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Mon 2025-02-10 13:23:21, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
> > > being bitmap and scanf), the rest having
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2025-02-10 13:23:21, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
> > being bitmap and scanf), the rest having been converted to KUnit.
> >
> > I tested this using:
> >
> > $
On Mon 2025-02-10 13:23:21, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
> being bitmap and scanf), the rest having been converted to KUnit.
>
> I tested this using:
>
> $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 printf
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 09:24:03AM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> Just to be clear: I do not intend to review a series that doesn't
> cover the full gamut of KVM from day 1. Protected mode is an absolute
> requirement. It is the largest KVM deployment, and Android phones the
> o
> > > +/* The number of packets dropped because of no buffer available, no PPE
> > > + * buffer assigned to these packets.
> > > + */
> > > +static void ppe_port_rx_drop_counter_get(struct ppe_device *ppe_dev,
> > > + struct seq_file *seq)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 reg,
On 11/02/2025 06:57, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:35:47PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
>> Add basic infrastructure to support the FWFT extension in KVM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 +
>> arch/riscv/include/asm/k
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 01:57:43 +,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> I've removed the RFC tag from this version of the series, but the items
> that I'm looking for feedback on remains the same:
>
> - The userspace ABI, in particular:
> - The vector length used for the SVE registers, access to the SVE
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 04:30:29PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> This is on Github:
> https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commits/iommufd_veventq-v6
>
> Testing with RMR patches for MSI:
> https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commits/iommufd_veventq-v6-with-rmr
> Paring QEMU branch for testing:
> ht
Em Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:15:28 -0800
Randy Dunlap escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
>
> On 2/13/25 4:06 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > That's the second version of the Python kernel-doc tool.
> >
> > As the previous version, I tried to stay as close as possible of the
> > original
19 matches
Mail list logo
