Hi Ilpo, On 2/14/2023 2:00 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 2/8/2023 1:40 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Presently, while calculating MBM results, the divisor is hard coded as 4. >> >> "Presently" can be removed. Here and in the rest of the series the usage of >> "presently" and "currently" can usually be removed to improve clarity. >> >>> It's hard coded to 4 because "NUM_OF_RUNS" is defined as 5 and the test >>> does not count first result and hence 4. So, instead of hard coding the >>> value to 4, change it to NUM_OF_RUNS - 1. >> >> Are there any plans surrounding using struct resctrl_val_param::num_of_runs >> instead? > > Actually no. > > What I'd want to do is that the functions which call these result > calculator functions would specify the number of tests they passed > into the result calculator. It seems safer because the results are read Would it not simplify things to pass the test parameters (struct resctrl_val_param) to the result calculator? That contains the number of tests run and would reign in the hard coding. > back from a file which could have changed (or got deleted due to an > ipc bug prematurely cleaning up the file) and would better take account > those cases where the first value is skipped when reading the results. > This sounds good. Thank you. Reinette
