On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:56:03PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, at 3:47 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > > > Merge proc-self-map-files t
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:56:03PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, at 3:47 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > > Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> > > testing readl
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, at 3:47 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> > testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
> > mapping virtua
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
> mapping virtual address 0.
>
> Lowest virtual address for user space mapping i
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 04:48:49PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
>
> let me see if I got this right.. the premise for this test is to have *at
> least*
> 2 vmas, so we can check if the symlink for the mem range, describing the
> mapped
> area, is correct in procfs files, correct ? if yes, th
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:01:13AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> >
> > Alright, I'm fixing membarrier_test before, so.. I guess we have a
> > competition.. =o)
>
> Rafael, Alexey, what about simply wrap the test code with x86 and ex
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:01:13AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
>
> Alright, I'm fixing membarrier_test before, so.. I guess we have a
> competition.. =o)
Rafael, Alexey, what about simply wrap the test code with x86 and extend later
with all archs which support zero address mapping?
---
t
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 9:48 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:45:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> ...
> > > today evening or tomorrow. I think this way everybody will be
> > > happy: procfs get passed on arm32 and x86 will still have first
> > > page testing.
> >
> >
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:45:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
...
> > today evening or tomorrow. I think this way everybody will be
> > happy: procfs get passed on arm32 and x86 will still have first
> > page testing.
>
> Ohh, my understanding was that this was going to be addressed in some
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> > testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
> > mapping virtual
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:30:36AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
> testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
> mapping virtual address 0.
>
> Lowest virtual address for user space mapping i
Merge proc-self-map-files tests into one since this test should focus in
testing readlink in /proc/self/map_files/* only, and not trying to test
mapping virtual address 0.
Lowest virtual address for user space mapping in other architectures,
like arm, is *at least* *(PAGE_SIZE * 2) and NULL hint d
12 matches
Mail list logo
