[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6be796c64cb4ba21ef879facc65f5b3b476cacfd.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:19:27 -0800
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/selftests/xsave: Introduce XSAVE tests
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 13:45 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I wonder, though, if you can spend a little more time on these. They
> look a little "raw". They're virtually free of comments and there is no
> explanation of what the tests do or why they do them. I honestly forget
> things like what XSAVE has to do with fork() failing, for instance.
I will add comments of what problems each test detects.
> I'd question why we need 5 different .c files. It also seems like
> things like set_ymm() could be trivially factored into a .h rather than
> making 5 copies of them.
Each C file contains only one single test and can be built with one command,
e.g. "gcc xsave_check_exec.c", or as part of the whole selftest.
I am hoping that, should any test fail, one can easily modify the test to find
out why.
Yes, I will move set_ymm() to a header file.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists