Hi Ilpo,
On 11/3/2023 4:24 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 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, ¶m);
>>> + ret = resctrl_val(uparams->benchmark_cmd, ¶m);
>>> 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?
I am ok with that. I assume this implies that cpu_no will be removed from
resctrl_val_param?
> 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...).
"Naming only" changes that are not part of something more substantive are not
very appealing though.
Reinette
