[LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] Hugetlb: Migrating libhugetlbfs corrupt-by-cow-opt

[Tarun Sahu]

On Tue, 2022-10-25 at 12:04 +0100, Richard Palethorpe wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Tarun Sahu <tsahu@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Migrating the libhugetlbfs/testcases/corrupt-by-cow-opt.c test
> > 
> > Test Description: Test sanity of cow optimization on page cache. If
> > a page
> > in page cache has only 1 ref count, it is mapped for a private
> > mapping
> > directly and is overwritten freely, so next time we access the
> > page, we
> > can see corrupt data.
> 
> Seems like this and 2/3 follow the same pattern. The setups are
> reasonably similar and could be encapsulated in tst_hugepage.
Do you mean by a encapsulating in a function. and call it from setup.
becuase it will anyway require explicit cleanup.

Or by defining a new field in struct tst_hugepage, if that is true,
that setup will automatically be done in do_setup in tst_test file.
which means it will require change in tst_test.c too. also change in 
do_cleanup in tst_test.c will also be required. 

> 
> > +
> > +static struct tst_test test = {
> > +	.needs_root = 1,
> > +	.needs_tmpdir = 1,
> > +	.options = (struct tst_option[]) {
> > +		{"H:", &Hopt,   "Location of hugetlbfs, i.e.  -H
> > /var/hugetlbfs"},
> > +		{"s:", &nr_opt, "Set the number of the been allocated
> > hugepages"},
> 
> nr_opt also seems suspicious. The test only ever allocates one page
> at a
> time regardless of what this is set to. Changing it will just change
> how
> much free memory we check for unless I am mistaken.
yes, Will update it and also will check for other test cases if not
required. 

> 
> > +		{}
> > +	},
> > +	.setup = setup,
> > +	.cleanup = cleanup,
> > +	.test_all = run_test,
> > +	.hugepages = {2, TST_NEEDS},
> > +};
> > -- 
> > 2.31.1
> 
>