On 2026-10-21 19:34 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 05:42:48PM -0400, Gregory Price (Meta) wrote: > > From: Gregory Price <[email protected]> > > > > Repeat the online/offline pair to cover onlining from 'unplugged', and > > check that offline-memory unplugs an already offline device. After each > > step, check block counts and, where present, daxX.Y/state and the > > 'hotplug_state' reported by 'daxctl list'. > > Hi Greg, > > Please change how the tests handle the absence of the new sysfs attribute. > If a test expects the new interface, a missing attribute should cause > the test to fail, with a clear error message. We have had problems in > the past with tests silently not executing letting defects go undetected. >
ack > Note that we don't require backward compatibility for the unit tests. > The utilities must continue working with older kernels, but tests for new > functionality should fail loudly when that functionality is missing. > (I'm aware that not all tests follow that guideline, and they need fixing.) > this is slightly confusing, but noted. I would have expected the tests to test backward compatibility. But ack. > Please also leave the existing test cases as they were and run the new > state-dependent cases last. > ack. > A few stale state cases would exercise daxctl behavior that the kernel > selftest can't cover - > > - Offline one memory block out-of-band, verify that daxctl list > reports hotplug_state "inconsistent", then verify that > offline-memory still leaves the device unplugged with its blocks > removed. > > - Offline all blocks out-of-band, then verify that > "reconfigure-device -m devdax" succeeds and the blocks are removed. > > - With all blocks offline but the device state still reporting > online, verify that online-memory falls back to the per-block path > and brings everything online. > good idea. > For "blocks removed", please check that the device's memory blocks > are gone from /sys/devices/system/memory. ie verify in sysfs directly > independent of the libdaxctl code being tested. > ack > About multi-range devices- > > I found that libdaxctl undercounts memory blocks on multi-range devices. > I'm posting a separate fix and test for that. Nothing in this series needs > to change. I'll cc you for review. > ack > Our ndctl emulation can't exercise multi-range hotplug, but the kernel > selftest can run against a real multi-range device. Could you add coverage > there, including the partial-add case where the kernel reports success > even though not all ranges were added? > ack. Thanks Alison! -- ~Gregory
