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