| Message ID | 20230911111930.16088-3-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 030b48fb2cf045dead8ee2c5ead560930044c029 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/resctrl: Fixes to failing tests | expand |
Hi Ilpo, On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT > feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. > Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. > > Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> This does not look like stable material to me. Reinette
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT > > feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. > > Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. > > > > Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > This does not look like stable material to me. I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() or remove this call entirely. Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too.
Hi Ilpo, On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT >>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. >>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. >>> >>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> >>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> >> >> This does not look like stable material to me. > > I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: > > Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() > or remove this call entirely. > > Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it > (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires > this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. > Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd defer to your experience. Reinette
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT > >>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. > >>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. > >>> > >>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> > >>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > >> > >> This does not look like stable material to me. > > > > I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: > > > > Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() > > or remove this call entirely. > > > > Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it > > (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires > > this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. > > > > Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed > in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me > that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a > fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable > I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the > actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise > this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" > > I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden > the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd > defer to your experience. I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id (the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago so I cannot easily find the link. Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't state that the stable address should be only used for the patches with Fixes. In general, I believe this doesn't matter much because whether something is Cc'ed or not to stable@vger.kernel.org doesn't seems to impact the decision if a patch goes into stable or not (even if even some maintainers seem to pretend leaving it out makes a difference so I tend to play along and smile myself how incorrect that assumption is :-)).
Hi Ilpo, On 9/14/2023 2:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>>>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT >>>>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. >>>>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. >>>>> >>>>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> >>>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> >>>> >>>> This does not look like stable material to me. >>> >>> I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: >>> >>> Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() >>> or remove this call entirely. >>> >>> Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it >>> (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires >>> this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. >>> >> >> Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed >> in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me >> that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a >> fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable >> I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the >> actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise >> this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: >> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" >> >> I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden >> the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd >> defer to your experience. > > I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how > to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id > (the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago > so I cannot easily find the link. I see, thank you. I was not aware of this custom. Reinette
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c index cf2f5e92dea6..50bdbce9fba9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c @@ -80,9 +80,6 @@ int cmt_resctrl_val(int cpu_no, int n, const char * const *benchmark_cmd) size_t span; int ret, i; - if (!validate_resctrl_feature_request(CMT_STR)) - return -1; - ret = get_cbm_mask("L3", cbm_mask); if (ret) return ret;
The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)