On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:55:31PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:19:42PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 12:45:27AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: > >> After previous change, we may double the array based on the position of > >> the new range. > >> > >> Let's make sure the 129th memory block would double the size correctly > >> at all possible position. > > > >Rather than rewrite an existing test, just add a new one. > > Ok, will add a new one for this. > > >Besides, it would be more interesting to test additions to > >memblock.reserved and a mix of memblock_add() and memblock_reserve() that > >will require resizing the memblock arrays. > > I don't get this very clearly. Would you mind give more hint? There is memblock_reserve_many_check() that verifies that memblock.reserved is properly resized. I think it's better to add test that adds 129th block at multiple locations to memblock.reserved. > -- > Wei Yang > Help you, Help me -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
