lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86/selftests/pkeys: fork() to check for state being preserved
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 10:57:24AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/3/19 5:52 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> > The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
> >
> > The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.0, v4.19.13, v4.14.91, v4.9.148, v4.4.169, v3.18.131,
> >
> > v4.20.0: Build OK!
> > v4.19.13: Build OK!
> > v4.14.91: Build OK!
> > v4.9.148: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > f50b4878329a ("x86/pkeys/selftests: Fix pkey exhaustion test off-by-one")
>
> Protection keys was merged in 4.8. We can ignore any of the selftests
> changes before that.
>
> But, it looks like the 4.9 selftests are a bit behind mainline.
> Probably because I didn't cc stable@ on f50b4878329a. I don't have a
> strong opinion as to how up-to-date we want to keep the -stable
> selftests. Shua, is there a usual way that folks do this?

I wouldn't worry too much about selftests. Usually people run the
latest selftests (like 4.20) on older stable kernels, as they "should"
just work properly (or at least fail gracefully).

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-10 20:17    [W:0.041 / U:1.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site