1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH v2 0/7] selftests/mm: Fix false positives and skip unsupported tests
  4. View patch

[PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests

Aboorva Devarajan posted 7 patches 7 months, 1 week ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by Aboorva Devarajan 7 months, 1 week ago 
In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
appeared to be skipped or silently failed.

This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
(1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them correctly.
This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
failures.

--------------
Before patch:
--------------
- [RUN] test_unmerge
ok 1 Pages were unmerged
...
- [RUN] test_prctl_fork
- No pages got merged
- [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
...
Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
- Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
- Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0

--------------
After patch:
--------------
- [RUN] test_unmerge
ok 1 Pages were unmerged
...
- [RUN] test_prctl_fork
- No pages got merged
not ok 7 Merge in child failed
- [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
...
Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
- Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0

Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test case for ksm fork/exec")
Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
index 996dc6645570..b080d591d984 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
@@ -512,14 +512,14 @@ static int test_child_ksm(void)
 
 	/* Test if KSM is enabled for the process. */
 	if (prctl(PR_GET_MEMORY_MERGE, 0, 0, 0, 0) != 1)
-		return -1;
+		return 1;
 
 	/* Test if merge could really happen. */
 	map = __mmap_and_merge_range(0xcf, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, KSM_MERGE_NONE);
 	if (map == MAP_MERGE_FAIL)
-		return -2;
+		return 2;
 	else if (map == MAP_MERGE_SKIP)
-		return -3;
+		return 3;
 
 	ksm_unmerge();
 	munmap(map, size);
@@ -528,11 +528,11 @@ static int test_child_ksm(void)
 
 static void test_child_ksm_err(int status)
 {
-	if (status == -1)
+	if (status == 1)
 		ksft_test_result_fail("unexpected PR_GET_MEMORY_MERGE result in child\n");
-	else if (status == -2)
+	else if (status == 2)
 		ksft_test_result_fail("Merge in child failed\n");
-	else if (status == -3)
+	else if (status == 3)
 		ksft_test_result_skip("Merge in child skipped\n");
 }
 
-- 
2.43.5
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by David Hildenbrand 7 months, 1 week ago 
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
> to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
> interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
> incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
> appeared to be skipped or silently failed.
> 
> This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
> (1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them correctly.
> This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
> failures.
> 
> --------------
> Before patch:
> --------------
> - [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> ...
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> - No pages got merged
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> ...
> Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
> - Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
> - Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 
> --------------
> After patch:
> --------------
> - [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> ...
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> - No pages got merged
> not ok 7 Merge in child failed
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> ...
> Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
> - Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 
> Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test case for ksm fork/exec")
> Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>

BTW, when I run the test, I get this weird output

TAP version 13
1..9
# [RUN] test_unmerge
ok 1 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
ok 3 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
ok 4 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_prot_none
ok 5 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_prctl
ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
# [RUN] test_prctl_fork
ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
# [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec

^ where is the test?

# [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
ok 8 Pages were unmerged
# Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
# Totals: pass:8 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0

^ what?

ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
# [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
ok 9 Pages were unmerged
# Totals: pass:9 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0

^ huh, what now?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by Donet Tom 7 months, 1 week ago 
Hi David

On 7/3/25 2:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
>> In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
>> to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
>> interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
>> incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
>> appeared to be skipped or silently failed.
>>
>> This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
>> (1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them correctly.
>> This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
>> failures.
>>
>> --------------
>> Before patch:
>> --------------
>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>> ...
>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>> - No pages got merged
>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>> ...
>> Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
>> - Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>
>> --------------
>> After patch:
>> --------------
>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>> ...
>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>> - No pages got merged
>> not ok 7 Merge in child failed
>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>> ...
>> Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>
>> Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test 
>> case for ksm fork/exec")
>> Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
>
> BTW, when I run the test, I get this weird output
>
> TAP version 13
> 1..9
> # [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
> ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
> ok 3 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
> ok 4 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_prot_none
> ok 5 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_prctl
> ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>
> ^ where is the test?
>
> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
> ok 8 Pages were unmerged
> # Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
> # Totals: pass:8 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>
> ^ what?
>
> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
> ok 9 Pages were unmerged
> # Totals: pass:9 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>
> ^ huh, what now?
>

The problem with the exec test is that it uses its own binary to exec.

         } else if (child_pid == 0) {
                 char *prg_name = "./ksm_functional_tests";
                 char *argv_for_program[] = { prg_name, 
FORK_EXEC_CHILD_PRG_NAME, NULL };

                 execv(prg_name, argv_for_program);
                 return;
         }

So we should run it on the same directory where the binary present.
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by David Hildenbrand 7 months, 1 week ago 
On 03.07.25 10:51, Donet Tom wrote:
> Hi David
> 
> On 7/3/25 2:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
>>> In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
>>> to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
>>> interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
>>> incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
>>> appeared to be skipped or silently failed.
>>>
>>> This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
>>> (1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them correctly.
>>> This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
>>> failures.
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Before patch:
>>> --------------
>>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>>> ...
>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>>> - No pages got merged
>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>> ...
>>> Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
>>> - Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
>>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> After patch:
>>> --------------
>>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>>> ...
>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>>> - No pages got merged
>>> not ok 7 Merge in child failed
>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>> ...
>>> Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
>>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test
>>> case for ksm fork/exec")
>>> Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>> BTW, when I run the test, I get this weird output
>>
>> TAP version 13
>> 1..9
>> # [RUN] test_unmerge
>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
>> ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
>> ok 3 Pages were unmerged
>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
>> ok 4 Pages were unmerged
>> # [RUN] test_prot_none
>> ok 5 Pages were unmerged
>> # [RUN] test_prctl
>> ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
>> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>
>> ^ where is the test?
>>
>> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
>> ok 8 Pages were unmerged
>> # Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
>> # Totals: pass:8 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>
>> ^ what?
>>
>> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
>> ok 9 Pages were unmerged
>> # Totals: pass:9 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>
>> ^ huh, what now?
>>
> 
> The problem with the exec test is that it uses its own binary to exec.
> 
>           } else if (child_pid == 0) {
>                   char *prg_name = "./ksm_functional_tests";
>                   char *argv_for_program[] = { prg_name,
> FORK_EXEC_CHILD_PRG_NAME, NULL };
> 
>                   execv(prg_name, argv_for_program);
>                   return;
>           }
 > > So we should run it on the same directory where the binary present.

So, I assume the execv fails. We should handle that, and figure out why 
it fails.

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c 
b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
index d8bd1911dfc0a..0ddbb390df33b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
@@ -527,6 +527,8 @@ static void test_child_ksm_err(int status)
                 ksft_test_result_fail("Merge in child failed\n");
         else if (status == -3)
                 ksft_test_result_skip("Merge in child skipped\n");
+       else if (status == 4)
+               ksft_test_result_fail("Binary not found\n");
  }

  /* Verify that prctl ksm flag is inherited. */
@@ -598,7 +600,7 @@ static void test_prctl_fork_exec(void)
                 char *argv_for_program[] = { prg_name, 
FORK_EXEC_CHILD_PRG_NAME };

                 execv(prg_name, argv_for_program);
-               return;
+               exit(4);
         }

         if (waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0) > 0) {

results in

TAP version 13
1..9
# [RUN] test_unmerge
ok 1 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
ok 3 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
ok 4 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_prot_none
ok 5 Pages were unmerged
# [RUN] test_prctl
ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
# [RUN] test_prctl_fork
ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
# [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
not ok 8 Binary not found
# [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
ok 9 Pages were unmerged
Bail out! 1 out of 9 tests failed
# Totals: pass:8 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by Donet Tom 7 months, 1 week ago 
On 7/3/25 2:44 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.07.25 10:51, Donet Tom wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> On 7/3/25 2:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
>>>> In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
>>>> to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
>>>> interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
>>>> incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
>>>> appeared to be skipped or silently failed.
>>>>
>>>> This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
>>>> (1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them 
>>>> correctly.
>>>> This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
>>>> failures.
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>> Before patch:
>>>> --------------
>>>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>>>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>>>> ...
>>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>>>> - No pages got merged
>>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>>> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>>> ...
>>>> Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
>>>> - Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
>>>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>> After patch:
>>>> --------------
>>>> - [RUN] test_unmerge
>>>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>>>> ...
>>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>>>> - No pages got merged
>>>> not ok 7 Merge in child failed
>>>> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>>> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>>> ...
>>>> Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
>>>> - Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test
>>>> case for ksm fork/exec")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> BTW, when I run the test, I get this weird output
>>>
>>> TAP version 13
>>> 1..9
>>> # [RUN] test_unmerge
>>> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
>>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
>>> ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
>>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
>>> ok 3 Pages were unmerged
>>> # [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
>>> ok 4 Pages were unmerged
>>> # [RUN] test_prot_none
>>> ok 5 Pages were unmerged
>>> # [RUN] test_prctl
>>> ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
>>> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork
>>> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
>>>
>>> ^ where is the test?
>>>
>>> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
>>> ok 8 Pages were unmerged
>>> # Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
>>> # Totals: pass:8 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>
>>> ^ what?
>>>
>>> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
>>> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
>>> ok 9 Pages were unmerged
>>> # Totals: pass:9 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>>>
>>> ^ huh, what now?
>>>
>>
>> The problem with the exec test is that it uses its own binary to exec.
>>
>>           } else if (child_pid == 0) {
>>                   char *prg_name = "./ksm_functional_tests";
>>                   char *argv_for_program[] = { prg_name,
>> FORK_EXEC_CHILD_PRG_NAME, NULL };
>>
>>                   execv(prg_name, argv_for_program);
>>                   return;
>>           }
> > > So we should run it on the same directory where the binary present.
>
> So, I assume the execv fails. We should handle that, and figure out 
> why it fails.
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
> index d8bd1911dfc0a..0ddbb390df33b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
> @@ -527,6 +527,8 @@ static void test_child_ksm_err(int status)
>                 ksft_test_result_fail("Merge in child failed\n");
>         else if (status == -3)
>                 ksft_test_result_skip("Merge in child skipped\n");
> +       else if (status == 4)
> +               ksft_test_result_fail("Binary not found\n");
>  }
>
>  /* Verify that prctl ksm flag is inherited. */
> @@ -598,7 +600,7 @@ static void test_prctl_fork_exec(void)
>                 char *argv_for_program[] = { prg_name, 
> FORK_EXEC_CHILD_PRG_NAME };
>
>                 execv(prg_name, argv_for_program);
> -               return;
> +               exit(4);
>         }
>
>         if (waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0) > 0) {
>
> results in
>
> TAP version 13
> 1..9
> # [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_zero_pages
> ok 2 KSM zero pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_discarded
> ok 3 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_unmerge_uffd_wp
> ok 4 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_prot_none
> ok 5 Pages were unmerged
> # [RUN] test_prctl
> ok 6 Setting/clearing PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE works
> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> # [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
> not ok 8 Binary not found
> # [RUN] test_prctl_unmerge
> ok 9 Pages were unmerged
> Bail out! 1 out of 9 tests failed
> # Totals: pass:8 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0


Thanks David.

We will add this in next version.


>
>
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] selftests/mm: Fix child process exit codes in ksm_functional_tests
Posted by David Hildenbrand 7 months, 1 week ago 
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
> to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
> interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading to
> incorrect handling in the parent process. As a result, some tests
> appeared to be skipped or silently failed.
> 
> This patch changes test_child_ksm() to return positive error codes
> (1, 2, 3) and updates test_child_ksm_err() to interpret them correctly.
> This ensures the parent accurately detects and reports child process
> failures.
> 
> --------------
> Before patch:
> --------------
> - [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> ...
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> - No pages got merged
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
> ok 7 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> ...
> Bail out! 1 out of 8 tests failed
> - Planned tests != run tests (9 != 8)
> - Totals: pass:7 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 
> --------------
> After patch:
> --------------
> - [RUN] test_unmerge
> ok 1 Pages were unmerged
> ...
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork
> - No pages got merged
> not ok 7 Merge in child failed
> - [RUN] test_prctl_fork_exec
> ok 8 PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE value is inherited
> ...
> Bail out! 2 out of 9 tests failed
> - Totals: pass:7 fail:2 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 
> Fixes: 6c47de3be3a0 ("selftest/mm: ksm_functional_tests: extend test case for ksm fork/exec")
> Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>

Surprising, but seems to be the right thing to do.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.