I deeply appreciate for your criticism. This is my first patch and I will improve it based on what we have discussed so far.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:36:48PM +0800, wang lian wrote:
I deeply appreciate for your criticism. This is my first patch and I will improve it based on what we have discussed so far.
Sorry if it seemed harsh, I appreciate the first patch can be difficult (I still remember mine!) but hopefully it's clear the focus is on getting things right technically and this is all :)
Overall I think something more like a generalised test of process_madvise() behaviour would be most valuable, as David suggested?
Thanks, Lorenzo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2025 at 00:00:00 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
Sorry if it seemed harsh, I appreciate the first patch can be difficult (I still remember mine!) but hopefully it's clear the focus is on getting things right technically and this is all :)
Overall I think something more like a generalised test of process_madvise() behaviour would be most valuable, as David suggested?
Thank you for your helpful and constructive feedback.
I understand that getting things right technically is critical, and I really appreciate your guidance and encouragement as I work on my first patch.
I will revise the patch based on the suggestion to generalize the test for `process_madvise()` behavior, as David proposed.
Thanks again to everyone for the insightful comments and support!
Best regards, wang lian
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Lorenzo Stoakes -
wang lian