Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support | From | Davidlohr Bueso <> | Date | Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote: > > > As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to > > libhugetlbfs as described at: > > http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tests-for-fallocate-system-call/
Great!
> > I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes > tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful?
Why harmful? Redundant, maybe(?). Does anyone even use selftests for hugetlbfs regression testing? Lets see, we also have these:
- hugepage-{mmap,shm}.c - map_hugetlb.c
There's probably a lot of room for improvement here.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |