On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 04:48:49PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > > let me see if I got this right.. the premise for this test is to have *at least* > 2 vmas, so we can check if the symlink for the mem range, describing the mapped > area, is correct in procfs files, correct ? if yes, then why to have a totally > duplicated test... just to check if mmap(0, ... MAP_FIXED ...) would work ? > > Wouldn't exist a better place to have such test ? like in > tools/testing/selftests/vm/mmap-null.c or something like it ? genuine > curiosity.. thinking i'm missing something about this test... Ah, I happen to miss that they are identical except nil address. Then true, vm/ looks like more suitable place for that. Do you happen to know which exactly archs reserve first page (together with x86)?
