On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 03:11:52PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 6/2/23 08:59, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 06:33:56PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > > This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a > > > follow-up fix to the uffd builds. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks for further looking into this. > > > > I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had > > those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code > > in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in > > most test cases except uffd tests. > > I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h > where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I > would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their > best-named location. Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me.. If you think vm_util.h is a name too common to contain uffd helpers, shall we create another vm_util_uffd.h just to put the uffd helpers? Just see what's there in uffd-common.h, which is still ugly (I could look into it some other day): extern unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size; extern char *area_src, *area_src_alias, *area_dst, *area_dst_alias, *area_remap; extern int uffd, uffd_flags, finished, *pipefd, test_type; extern bool map_shared; extern bool test_uffdio_wp; extern unsigned long long *count_verify; extern volatile bool test_uffdio_copy_eexist; extern uffd_test_ops_t anon_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t shmem_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t hugetlb_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t *uffd_test_ops; and more. That's why I think this header should not better be included by anyone else besides uffd-stress.c and uffd-unit-tests.c for now. > > > > > I'm not sure whether we can just make your next patch of "ifndef.." into > > vm_utils.h to avoid the movement, or is it a must? > > > > Actually, I think I can drop the next patch entirely, based on > Muhammad's observation that we should be doing a "make headers" > to pull in those items. I'll have more to say over on that thread. Sure, great if the local headers will work. Thanks. -- Peter Xu
