On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:25:39 +0200
Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Claudio Imbrenda (2024-10-01 13:36:40)
> [...]
> > diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
> > index 16138397..1f582efc 100644
> > --- a/s390x/edat.c
> > +++ b/s390x/edat.c
> > @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ static void test_edat1(void)
> >
> > static void test_edat2(void)
> > {
> [...]
> > @@ -206,7 +208,21 @@ static void test_edat2(void)
> > /* Prefixing should not work with huge pages, just like large pages */
> > report(!memcmp(0, VIRT(prefix_buf), LC_SIZE) &&
> > !memcmp(prefix_buf, VIRT(0), LC_SIZE),
> > - "pmd, large, prefixing");
> > + "pud, large, prefixing");
> > +
> > + mem_end = get_ram_size();
> > + if (mem_end >= BIT_ULL(REGION3_SHIFT)) {
> > + report_skip("pud spanning end of memory");
>
> Does it make sense to explicitly add a mem parameter in unittests.cfg so
> this will never be the case?
hmmm, I did not consider this case; I kinda assumed we would never
increase the default guest size
I do not have any strong opinions
