On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 11:41:24AM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:56 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:23:46PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > This series attempts to clean up demand_paging_test and dirty_log_test > > > by factoring out common code, creating some new API along the way. It's > > > main goal is to prepare for even more factoring that Ben and Peter want > > > to do. The series would have a nice negative diff stat, but it also > > > picks up a few of Peter's patches for his new dirty log test. So, the > > > +/- diff stat is close to equal. It's not as close as an electoral vote > > > count, but it's close. > > > > > > I've tested on x86 and AArch64 (one config each), but not s390x. > > > > The whole series looks good to me (probably except the PTRS_PER_PAGE one; but > > that's not hurting much anyways, I think). Thanks for picking up the other > > patches, even if they made the diff stat much less pretty.. > > This series looks good to me too. Thanks for doing this Drew! > > Sorry I'm later than I wanted to be in reviewing this series. I > learned I was exposed to someone with COVID yesterday, so I've been a > bit scattered. The dirty log perf test series v3 might be delayed a > bit as a result, but I'll send it out as soon as I can after this > series is merged. > Yikes! Don't worry about KVM selftests then. Except for one more question? Can I translate your "looks good to me" into a r-b for the series? And, same question for Peter. I'll be respinning witht eh PTES_PER_PAGE change and can add your guys' r-b's if you want to give them. Thanks, drew
