On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:22:04PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 09:35:25AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:19:22AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: > >> In stead of add 129th memory block at the last position, let's try all > >> possible position. > > > >Why do you insist on changing the existing test rather than adding a new > >one? > > > > Sounds there is some misunderstanding between us. > > I am not sure about your idea at first, so I sent a draft to confirm with you. > Then I came up with another version which could trigger the overlap bug. > > You mentioned to keep both and not objection to the first draft, which is the > same as this one, I thought this is what you expect. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My intention was to keep the existing test and add a new one rather than update the old test. > Well, I will add a new one next round. Do you have some suggestion on the > function name? memblock_reserve_many_all_position_check ? How about memblock_reserve_all_locations_check? > >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c | 121 ++++++++++++----------- > >> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > > > >-- > >Sincerely yours, > >Mike. > > -- > Wei Yang > Help you, Help me -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
