On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:17:19PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: >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. > You are so kind. Nice to work with you. >> 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? > Yep, sounds good :-) >> >> 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. -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
