On Fri, 3 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
--
i.
> > 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
>
