lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] move hugepage test examples to tools/testing/selftests/vm
On 02/07/2012 07:53 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:15:55 +0800
> Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> hugepage-mmap.c, hugepage-shm.c and map_hugetlb.c in Documentation/vm are
>> simple pass/fail tests, It's better to promote them to tools/testing/selftests
>>
>> Thanks suggestion of Andrew Morton about this. They all need firstly setting up
>> proper nr_hugepages and hugepage-mmap need to mount hugetlbfs. So I add a shell
>> script run_test to do such work which will call the three test programs and
>> check the return value of them.
>>
>> Changes to original code including below:
>> a. add run_test script
>> b. return error when read_bytes mismatch with writed bytes.
>> c. coding style fixes: do not use assignment in if condition
>>
>
> I think Frederic is doing away with tools/testing/selftests/run_tests
> in favour of a Makefile target? ("make run_tests", for example).

>

> Until we see such a patch we cannot finalise your patch and if I apply
> your patch, his patch will need more work. Not that this is rocket
> science ;)


Understand.

>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_test
>
> (We now have a "run_tests" and a "run_test". The difference in naming
> is irritating)


Yes, I'm just refer to the breakpoints/Makefile which will make a target
breakpoints/run_test

>
> Your vm/run_test file does quite a lot of work and we couldn't sensibly
> move all its functionality into Makefile, I expect.
>
> So I think it's OK to retain a script for this, but I do think that we
> should think up a standardized way of invoking it from vm/Makefile, so
> the top-level Makefile in tools/testing/selftests can simply do "cd
> vm;make run_test", where the run_test target exists in all
> subdirectories. The vm/Makefile run_test target can then call out to
> the script.


Frederic, do you have any idea about this?

>
> Also, please do not assume that the script has the x bit set. The x
> bit easily gets lost on kernel scripts (patch(1) can lose it) so it is
> safer to invoke the script via "/bin/sh script-name" or $SHELL or
> whatever.


Agree, and quilt can not keep the x bit as well, I have to use git to
create a executable shell script

>
> Anyway, we should work with Frederic on sorting out some standard
> behavior before we can finalize this work, please.
>


Fine, I can redo this after the standard behavior is out

--
Thanks
Dave


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-07 02:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans