On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:03:06 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 03:01:25PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:54:37AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:06:42AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 13.11.25 04:46, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> > > > > Commit 4dfd4bba8578 ("selftests/mm/uffd: refactor non-composite global
> > > > > vars into struct") moved some of the operations previously implemented
> > > > > in uffd_setup_environment() earlier in the main test loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > The calculation of nr_pages, which involves a division by page_size,
> > > > > now
> > > > > occurs before checking that default_huge_page_size() returns a
> > > > > non-zero
> > > > > This leads to a division-by-zero error on systems with
> > > > > !CONFIG_HUGETLB.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix this by relocating the non-zero page_size check before the
> > > > > nr_pages
> > > > > calculation, as it was originally implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Do we CC stable on unit tests? From my recollection, no.
> > >
> > > Yeah please let's not.
> >
> > Oops, I keep getting confused about this Cc stable thing. Please let me
> > know if a v2 dropping the tag is needed.
>
> No need, Andrew should spot the objection and drop the tag :)
I actually add cc:stable tags to selftests fixes!
Because why not. Why leave people running known-to-be-buggy code when
our backporting processes are so well-functioning and lightweight?
I'm not getting the objection?
