Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-206262-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <6c946ece-3663-4520-a90a-68be4d93c56d@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:56:57 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: Add a test mangling with uc_sigmask
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: shuah@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, stsp2@yandex.ru, mingo@kernel.org,
 tglx@linutronix.de, mark.rutland@arm.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
 suzuki.poulose@arm.com, Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com,
 DeepakKumar.Mishra@arm.com, AneeshKumar.KizhakeVeetil@arm.com,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240607122319.768640-1-dev.jain@arm.com>
 <20240607122319.768640-3-dev.jain@arm.com>
 <ZmMHNZcYfNMW1Ft7@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
 <5d26ac17-a50a-46c4-8fcb-68eaa6d0ce2a@arm.com>
 <ZmMOOOEg06SWQ05m@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZmMOOOEg06SWQ05m@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 6/7/24 19:12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 06:53:27PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 18:42, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 05:53:19PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>> + * Test describing a clear distinction between signal states - delivered and
>>>> + * blocked, and their relation with ucontext.
>>> This would be clearer if it said more positiviely what the relationship
>>> between these things is actually expected to be and how they're tested.
>>> Right now it's a bit hard to tell what the test is actually verifying.
>> I thought I had described that quite well in the code comments.
>> Anyways, I shall incorporate some detail into the initial test
>> description too.
> If the overview is confusing and people have to read the code to figure
> out what it means then that's an issue...


You are right.

I shall post a v2 rather quickly, perhaps in 1-2 days;

the SIGPIPE vs SIGSEGV mistake basically renders

this patch useless (although the test would still

pass), and makes the code unnecessarily hard

to review.