[LTP] [PATCH v3 1/4] Hugetlb: Add new tst_test options for hugeltb test support
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
Mon Oct 31 15:56:05 CET 2022
Hi!
> Why not consider encapsulating these two new fields in 'struct
> tst_hugepage' ?
>
> Then the tst_test in the case can simply initialize to:
>
> ....
> static struct tst_test test = {
> .needs_root = 1,
> .taint_check = TST_TAINT_D | TST_TAINT_W,
> .setup = setup,
> .test_all = run_test,
> .hugepages = {1, TST_NEEDS, 1, 1},
> };
I do not like that we have magic constants in the .hugepages that are
not self describing. I would treat the hugetltbfs just as we treat
devfs, that would be:
#define MNTPOINT "hugetlbfs/"
#define HUGEFILE MNTPOINT "hugefile"
static int huge_fd;
static void setup(void)
{
huge_fd = tst_creat_unlinked(HUGEFILE);
...
}
static void cleanup(void)
{
if (huge_fd > 0)
SAFE_CLOSE(huge_fd);
}
static struct tst_test test = {
...
.mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
.needs_hugetlbfs = 1,
.setup = setup,
.cleanup = cleanup,
...
}
What do you think?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
More information about the ltp
mailing list