On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to > > libhugetlbfs as described at: > > http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tests-for-fallocate-system-call/ Great! > > I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes > tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful? Why harmful? Redundant, maybe(?). Does anyone even use selftests for hugetlbfs regression testing? Lets see, we also have these: - hugepage-{mmap,shm}.c - map_hugetlb.c There's probably a lot of room for improvement here. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>