On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 08:38:17PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 06:59:12PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:15:20AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 10:57:59AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Verify that an mremap within a range does not cause corruption > > > > > + * of unrelated part of range. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Consider the following range which is 2MB aligned and is > > > > > + * a part of a larger 10MB range which is not shown. Each > > > > > + * character is 256KB below making the source and destination > > > > > > Just noticed, I think you misspeak here, as this test doens't seem to > > > offset by 256 KiB? That is the strategy for mremap_move_1mb_from_start() > > > rather than this test so perhaps comment needs to be moved around? > > > > > > * 2MB each. The lower case letters are moved (s to d) and the > > > * upper case letters are not moved. The below test verifies > > > * that the upper case S letters are not corrupted by the > > > * adjacent mremap. > > > * > > > * |DDDDddddSSSSssss| > > > */ > > > static void mremap_move_within_range(char pattern_seed) > > > > Here we are moving 1MB within a 4MB zone of a large mapping. Each character > > 's' or 'd' is 256KB. The 256KB there is just for illustration and not really > > significant as such. The 'ssss' is moved to 'dddd' 1MB each. Here we make > > Ahhh I see. I find that a little confusing here, perhaps clearer to say 'each > block of letters is 1 MiB in size' or something? Sure, I'll do that. > Cheers! Cheers. And thanks for the reviews! - Joel
