On 07/17/2018 06:49 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
If the flag is 0, no bits will be set. Hence we cant expect the resulting bitmap to have a higher value than what it was earlier.
...
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/protection_keys.c @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ void pkey_disable_set(int pkey, int flags) dprintf1("%s(%d) pkey_reg: 0x"PKEY_REG_FMT"\n", __func__, pkey, read_pkey_reg()); if (flags)
pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg);}
I know these are just selftests, but this change makes zero sense without the context from how powerpc works. It's also totally non-obvious from the patch itself what is going on, even though I specifically called this out in a previous review.
Please add a comment here that either specifically calls out powerpc or talks about "an architecture that does this ..."
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html