Re: [PATCH 17/24] selftests/resctrl: Create struct for input parameter

[Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 2:26 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > index d3bf4368341e..5157a3f74fee 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > @@ -141,13 +141,13 @@ void mba_test_cleanup(void)
> >  	remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> >  }
> >  
> > -int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> > +int mba_schemata_change(const struct user_params *uparams)
> >  {
> >  	struct resctrl_val_param param = {
> >  		.resctrl_val	= MBA_STR,
> >  		.ctrlgrp	= "c1",
> >  		.mongrp		= "m1",
> > -		.cpu_no		= cpu_no,
> > +		.cpu_no		= uparams->cpu,
> >  		.filename	= RESULT_FILE_NAME,
> >  		.bw_report	= "reads",
> >  		.setup		= mba_setup
> > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> >  
> >  	remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> >  
> > -	ret = resctrl_val(benchmark_cmd, &param);
> > +	ret = resctrl_val(uparams->benchmark_cmd, &param);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> 
> How about a new member of struct resctrl_val_param that points to 
> uparams? That would remove cpu_no from resctrl_val_param
> and have everything available when a test needs to run ... not copying
> some user parameters into struct resctrl_val_param and passing
> others as parameters.

I'm a bit allergic to adding more stuff into resctrl_val_param. It seems 
a structure where random stuff has been thrown at just because it exists.
In general, your point is very valid though because the members of 
resctrl_val_param should be auditted through to see how many of them are 
even useful after adding uparams and struct resctrl_test.

I could get rid of copying parameters from uparams to params and just 
passing uparams instead of benchmark_cmd into resctrl_val(). Would you be 
okay with that?

Oh, and I really should rename resctrl_val() one day to something more 
meaningful too. :-) (but it won't be part of this series and will likely 
be another conflicty nightmare because resctrl_val_param too needs to 
be renamed...).

-- 
 i.