Quoting Claudio Imbrenda (2024-10-02 16:31:33)
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:25:39 +0200
> Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Claudio Imbrenda (2024-10-01 13:36:40)
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
> > > index 16138397..1f582efc 100644
> > > --- a/s390x/edat.c
> > > +++ b/s390x/edat.c
> > > @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ static void test_edat1(void)
> > >
> > > static void test_edat2(void)
> > > {
> > [...]
> > > @@ -206,7 +208,21 @@ static void test_edat2(void)
> > > /* Prefixing should not work with huge pages, just like large pages */
> > > report(!memcmp(0, VIRT(prefix_buf), LC_SIZE) &&
> > > !memcmp(prefix_buf, VIRT(0), LC_SIZE),
> > > - "pmd, large, prefixing");
> > > + "pud, large, prefixing");
> > > +
> > > + mem_end = get_ram_size();
> > > + if (mem_end >= BIT_ULL(REGION3_SHIFT)) {
> > > + report_skip("pud spanning end of memory");
> >
> > Does it make sense to explicitly add a mem parameter in unittests.cfg so
> > this will never be the case?
>
> hmmm, I did not consider this case; I kinda assumed we would never
> increase the default guest size
>
> I do not have any strong opinions
As long as the default mem size is OK, I think it's fine to leave as-is.
