[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2aa1e089-7af1-24f8-e33c-b123f094f4c3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:48:40 +0800
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ajones@...tanamicro.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, maz@...nel.org,
shuah@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com, ricarkol@...gle.com,
zhenyzha@...hat.com, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Consolidate memory
sizes
On 10/18/22 3:47 PM, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:08:48PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>> +#define MEM_EXTRA_SIZE 0x10000
>>>
>>> Also, an expression like "(64 << 10)" is more readable than a "1"
>>> with a tail of zeroes (it's easy to add one zero too many or be one
>>> zero short).
>>
>> +1 to not open coding raw numbers.
>>
>> I think it's high time KVM selftests add #defines for the common sizes, e.g. SIZE_4KB,
>> 16KB, 64K, 2MB, 1GB, etc...
>>
>> Alternatively (or in addition), just #define 1KB, 1MB, 1GB, and 1TB, and then do
>> math off of those.
>
> I mean I love boilerplate as much as the next guy, but we can just use
> tools/include/linux/sizes.h
>
Nice point, I didn't realize we already had 'tools/include/linux/sizes.h'.
The suggested macros (KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB and their variants) have been added
to PATCH[v2 5/6]. I think it's reasonable to use 'tools/include/linux/sizes.h'
directly instead of reinventing the wheel.
I will go ahead to use 'tools/include/linux/sizes.h' directly in v3 if nobody
objects. I would like to receive comments on v2 before I'm going to post v3.
Thanks,
Gavin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists