Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]