On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:01:13AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> >
> > Alright, I'm fixing membarrier_test before, so.. I guess we have a competition.. =o)
>
> Rafael, Alexey, what about simply wrap the test code with x86 and extend later
> with all archs which support zero address mapping?
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-ml.git/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-ml.git.orig/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c
> +++ linux-ml.git/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> +/*
> + * Should run on archs which support zero address mapping.
> + */
> +#if defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64)
> +
> static void pass(const char *fmt, unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
> {
> char name[64];
> @@ -83,3 +88,12 @@ int main(void)
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +#else
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#endif
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...
