[PATCH v3 00/13] selftests/mm: fix failures and robustness improvements

[Sayali Patil]

On 31/03/26 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:27:04 +0530 Sayali Patil<sayalip at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't want to risk breaking selftests so I'll set v3 aside until
>>> you're confident we should proceed.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>> This line continuation pattern has been used in selftests for quite some
>> time. For example, a similar usage exists in
>> |charge_reserved_hugetlb.sh|, introduced here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200211213128.73302-8-almasrymina@google.com/T/#u
>> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200211213128.73302-8-almasrymina@google.com/T/#u>
>>
>>    echo "$reservation_limit" > \
>>       $cgroup_path/$name/hugetlb.${MB}MB.$reservation_limit_file
>>
>> In this case, it was primarily used to keep line length within 100
>> characters. I’ve tested the script  and it behaved as expected.
> Great, thanks for checking.
>
> Series is nicely reviewed and an earlier version spent time in mm.git.
> And the bar tends to be lower for selftests.  So I *could* break my rule
> (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260323202941.08ddf2b0411501cae801ab4c@linux-foundation.org)
> but would prefer not.  What do others think?
>
> Did Venkat's report
> (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cf815c21-138e-44c8-986d-d8496503ee32@linux.ibm.com)
> get addressed?  I'm not seeing that in the v2->v3 changelogging.
>
Hi Andrew,
I am making changes as per AI review comments and will include them in v4.
The comments were helpful and should improve the overall quality of the 
series.
Also venkat's report has been addressed in v3 in "selftest/mm: fix 
cgroup task placement and drop memory.current checksin 
hugetlb_reparenting_test.sh" patch.

Thanks,
Sayali
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20260401/078d5266/attachment.htm>