[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59fd7956-caf8-03de-10a5-f37036219134@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:55:18 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"Shaopeng Tan" <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/19] selftests/resctrl: Move resctrl FS mount/umount
to higher level
Hi Ilpo,
On 7/13/2023 6:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> A few places currently lack umounting resctrl FS on error paths:
> - cmt_resctrl_val() has multiple error paths with direct return.
> - cat_perf_miss_val() has multiple error paths with direct return.
> In addition, validate_resctrl_feature_request() is called by
> run_mbm_test() and run_mba_test(). Neither MBA nor MBM test tries to
> umount resctrl FS.
>
> Each and every test does require resctrl FS to be present already for
> feature check. Thus, it makes sense to just mount it on higher level in
> resctrl_tests.c and properly pair it with umount.
>
> Move resctrl FS (re)mount/unmount into each test function in
> resctrl_tests.c. Make feature validation to simply check that resctrl
> FS is mounted.
>
> Fixes: 91db4fd9019a ("selftests/resctrl: Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file")
Could you please elaborate how this commit is the culprit?
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists