On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I do not see a why two patch series are needed for
> the resctrl fixes. It may make it easier for everybody if
> it is handled as one patch series (with fixes first)?
Ok, I can put the fixes and cleanups into one series.
> On 2/8/2023 1:30 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > malloc_and_init_memory() in fill_buf isn't checking if memalign()
> > successfully allocated memory or not before accessing the memory.
> >
> > Check the return value of memalign() and return NULL if allocating
> > aligned memory fails.
> >
> > Fixes: a2561b12fe39 ("selftests/resctrl: Add built in benchmark")
> > Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Missing your Signed-off-by?
These were intentionally. When I didn't modify the original patch at
all during forward porting it, I just kept the original From and SoB as
is. But from the doc you pointed me to, I see now x86 wants also handlers
sobs.
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> > index 56ccbeae0638..f4880c962ec4 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> > @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t s)
> > size_t s64;
> >
> > void *p = memalign(PAGE_SIZE, s);
>
> This may also be a good time to stop using an obsolete call?
Sure, I can add another patch to change that to posix_memalign().
> > + if (!p)
> > + return p;
>
> Could you please return NULL explicitly?
I'll change it.
Thanks for you comments.
--
i.
