[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1437603594.3298.5.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support
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@...cle.com> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists