On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 04:47:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 04:38:42PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > I don't know whether this is worth following up with a TODO? > > > Some things I was aware of: > > Well volunteered :P > > > * The sve-test/fpsimd-test programs contain a lot of common > > boilerplate and could probably be merged together. > > > * A fair amount of the asm in sve-test/fpsimd-test could be converted > > to C, with -fgeneral-regs-only. This would be helpful since the > > code is highly unmaintainable in its current form (I know, I've > > tried). Calling library functions would still be a problem, but we > > might be able to lift a printf implementation and some basic syscall > > wrappers from elsewhere rather than reimplementing everything from > > scratch. > > Or just keep the existing asm for the syscall/print wrappers. > > > * The sve-stress/fpsimd-stress scripts could likewise be merged. > > Also, doing the required process management from the shell seems a > > doomed enterprise and it never really worked 100% right. Eventually > > it might be worth rewriting a common test driver for these in a real > > language. > > > * While the tests confirm that basic aspects of the SVE support don't > > explode, there is not a lot of checking that the kernel does the > > _correct_ thing -- so there's scope for improvement here if somebody > > gets around to it. > > Yeah, more errors get trapped by the kernel's own internal checking than > by the tests themselves. OK, I can follow up with a patch so long as these points sounds reasonable to you. Either way, it's not urgent. Cheers ---Dave
