On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 02:07:10PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:47 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The primary goal here is not finding regressions but having clearly > > defined semantics of the page table accessors across architectures. x86 > > and arm64 are a good starting point and other architectures will be > > enabled as they are aligned to the same semantics. > > This still does not answer the fundamental question. If this test is > simply inefficient to find bugs, Who said this is inefficient (other than you)? > who wants to spend time to use it regularly? Arch maintainers, mm maintainers introducing new macros or assuming certain new semantics of the existing macros. > If this is just one off test that may get running once in a few years > (when introducing a new arch), how does it justify the ongoing cost to > maintain it? You are really missing the point. It's not only for a new arch but changes to existing arch code. And if the arch code churn in this area is relatively small, I'd expect a similarly small cost of maintaining this test. If you only turn DEBUG_VM on once every few years, don't generalise this to the rest of the kernel developers (as others pointed out, this test is default y if DEBUG_VM). Anyway, I think that's a pointless discussion, so not going to reply further (unless you have technical content to add). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
