On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:21:58PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> It's also probably going to be necessary to have separate sets of
> tests for different use-cases. For example, there might be a smaller,
> quicker set of tests to run on every patch, and a much longer, more
> expensive set which only ru
Hello,
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 04:21:58 -0300 David Gow wrote ---
> Hi Don,
>
> Thanks for putting this together: the discussion at Plumbers was very
> useful.
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 04:33, Donald Zickus dzic...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Linux Plumbers,
Hi!
> Then there are other perspectives that crosses this. For example, many of the
> LTP and
> kselftests will just fail, but there is no accumulated knowledge on what the
> result of
> each test means. So understanding what is expected to pass/fail for each
> platform is
> a sort of dependance
Hi Sean,
Thanks for reviewing my patches.
On 10/15/2024 11:19 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024, Manali Shukla wrote:
>> When a VMRUN instruction is executed, the bus lock threshold count is
>> loaded into an internal count register. Before the processor executes
>> a bus lock
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 04:17, Donald Zickus wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 3:22 AM David Gow wrote:
> >
> > Hi Don,
> >
> > Thanks for putting this together: the discussion at Plumbers was very
> > useful.
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 04:33, Donald Zickus wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
If the kunit being run generates a WARN for some reason kunit.py ignores it
and declares the tested PASSED. This is very much not desirable, as tests that
are hitting WARN's are probably actually failing.
Take the simple approach to reducing this by setting panic_on_warn when
running the kernel. T
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 8:32 AM Minas Hambardzumyan wrote:
>
> On 10/14/24 15:32, Donald Zickus wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Linux Plumbers, a few dozen of us gathered together to discuss how
> > to expose what tests subsystem maintainers would like to run for every
> > patch submitted or when CI run
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 3:22 AM David Gow wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Thanks for putting this together: the discussion at Plumbers was very useful.
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 04:33, Donald Zickus wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Linux Plumbers, a few dozen of us gathered together to discuss how
> > to ex
Hi Don,
Thanks for putting this together: the discussion at Plumbers was very useful.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 04:33, Donald Zickus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> At Linux Plumbers, a few dozen of us gathered together to discuss how
> to expose what tests subsystem maintainers would like to run for every
> pa
On 10/15/24 4:15 PM, Christoph Schlameuss wrote:
Add a test case manipulating s390 storage keys from within the ucontrol
VM.
Storage key instruction (ISKE, SSKE and RRBE) intercepts and
Keyless-subset facility are disabled on first use, where the skeys are
setup by KVM in non ucontrol VMs.
Sign
Set the initial rec_seq to 0x so that it wraps
immediately. The send() call should fail with EBADMSG.
A bug in this code was fixed in commit cfaa80c91f6f ("net/tls: do not
free tls_rec on async operation in bpf_exec_tx_verdict()").
Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca
---
tools/testin
11 matches
Mail list logo
