From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793974793; b=a0kPcuS8YxYlqfyYmVi7ymA3uGJMbXEvDXa6KhsgEuuLU+0/SAq5V9XcsP2c/BQCCFUY 5mhb0ZWTmxyxzKMUWtv19QrG7kqIAierU+AV5muu1S1KTnJvaqU9dKm+lpzq3J1Ff4Kud gds/wfrd76MFn/nbGoh6OGkvUEXKX7qU+VbnWwfzOzcPPUZYc2ouTYfAakeNL7gviXH2Q Bdxhzv88m4EjzIzpYfSDxTAtQy9Sp0CDGqXJOu5X43jweYBKdnzMYGnVjzf8E6Iu7vbzX Ndd8Il8cGjyyaB76h1ihKa2apHANRFvWPha7Y9Yv0EQxELjtV5UwHzSEkMdmtAGUwfw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793974793; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Date:Message-ID:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=nGx2NwMDbqtPHMPNsh9EPN5476lLpafXJ5wg9iLlkU0=; b=vyGnzG7W/woAWsnJwoQ/l7z7D3NVWiEcL1TFzFsEwMkx1barQhe2txK9CrAcgg23EiT5 cF5yJWqw+duMWvFZTkdb+8ZnquRToqxS5Sh6yCHf6lBG9CX2e6eMfaNgHqOCL6NA7t/wN 0mu93qBZPNMH6J/8+4Fn+PEGVlAIqWlyiqdTDgL7OG5tGVtRnaFSSs3eXHuxcdVhCXwqE Uae+P9Z7LEuOeHN65nA4n/FFB30xDgy2gOLakGMa7oQOu6gSFmKcBxBNfQBRDGKEyfGyK WpJojhLVT/I7ZVZPxhTVi5b+VclLfY4UHFZEIyH61Is8LgawUHG+Y3XMH9ixsenldHw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b="g/HGem5K"; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84D7606A32F; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:19:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=g/HGem5K Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C6B71F0089F; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:19:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793974792; bh=nGx2NwMDbqtPHMPNsh9EPN5476lLpafXJ5wg9iLlkU0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=g/HGem5KtJgc9W8TdrJwmhR17aQrSNJ/3WiUgE8cbYrwLqR+8CiOTS2uxScKtbGx1 2c6ZPsrzgjJk6QeVkM7SksMsqAMVHzIPtrjoCThNVLRzZkyXLs3fRlcuk/1ieJf6uA XgkSZqPTiFHZAjJQx4O1D77vN3Kr4sy7gUnO1Av7IfWWeiZWgd+rsuGRaN35Jjvajm JYPtGJ+oHjIv/8muL9XlSFCGAMWWSEVdAtfBIdf1rN+YqwnOkIcKs80n6KttGgm/cr w8WDikVb8t/E8NiEJJ8ZwKg2/Bo1m50TCIzF1c/Frj+iJVc2sPClcjdQanVGjc44Nj 04wzD72CKNRcw== From: Pratyush Yadav To: David Matlack Cc: Pasha Tatashin , Pratyush Yadav , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Baolin Wang , Christian Brauner , David Hildenbrand , Hugh Dickins , Jonathan Corbet , "Liam R. Howlett" , Lorenzo Stoakes , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Randy Dunlap , Samiullah Khawaja , Shuah Khan , Suren Baghdasaryan , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] selftests/liveupdate: Add a test for preserving tmpfs files In-Reply-To: (David Matlack's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2026 22:42:35 +0000") References: <20261103010216.3447716-1-dmatlack@google.com> <20261103010216.3447716-11-dmatlack@google.com> <2vxz1p90jzx4.fsf@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 15:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: <2vxzjymqhwjg.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Nov 04 2026, David Matlack wrote: > On 2026-11-04 02:37 PM, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >> On 11-04 17:59, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 03 2026, David Matlack wrote: >> > [...] >> > >> > Umm, no way I am reading all this... >> > >> > LLMs are great at generating tests, and I'm not saying there is no value >> > in this. It is just that this massive code dump is unreviewable by >> > humans. It is also unfair to the human reviewer because it took many >> > orders of magnitude less effort to _write_ them with an LLM. >> > >> > What do you all reckon we should do about this? Trust the LLM to get the >> > testing right? Do we give up human maintenance of tests entirely? Do we >> > do fault injection to test the tests themselves? >> > >> > Or do we make the tests smaller and more human reviewable? >> >> We need good test coverage, but I believe we can break this patch down >> into smaller changes where tested features are incrementally added. > > Agreed that it needs to be easier to review, but I'd like to keep the > coverage. Here's what I have in mind for v4: > > - Move the preserve-side checks that don't need a kexec into > liveupdate.c, like Pasha suggested in his earlier reply: which files > can be preserved (permissions, read-only and append-only files), the > frozen size while preserved, and unpreserve. Those then run with the > regular kselftests instead of only in vmtest.sh. > > - Split the rest of luo_tmpfs into several smaller commits that add the > tested features incrementally, e.g. one for the test infrastructure > and basic retrieve, one for the open() flags and creation checks, and > one for block accounting. That makes the series longer, but each > commit is a few hundred lines and can be reviewed on its own. > > It will still be long, but I think having the test coverage is worth it. Agreed. > > Does that sound reasonable? Sounds good. But I think practically speaking, it is not possible to review the tests as carefully as the main changes. I think I'll rely more on my LLM for those. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav