[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e266bb-653f-2fe2-9dbc-db8388f6aff1@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:24:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] selftests/resctrl: Create struct for input
parameter
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 2:26 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > index d3bf4368341e..5157a3f74fee 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > @@ -141,13 +141,13 @@ void mba_test_cleanup(void)
> > remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> > }
> >
> > -int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> > +int mba_schemata_change(const struct user_params *uparams)
> > {
> > struct resctrl_val_param param = {
> > .resctrl_val = MBA_STR,
> > .ctrlgrp = "c1",
> > .mongrp = "m1",
> > - .cpu_no = cpu_no,
> > + .cpu_no = uparams->cpu,
> > .filename = RESULT_FILE_NAME,
> > .bw_report = "reads",
> > .setup = mba_setup
> > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> >
> > remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> >
> > - ret = resctrl_val(benchmark_cmd, ¶m);
> > + ret = resctrl_val(uparams->benchmark_cmd, ¶m);
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
> >
>
> How about a new member of struct resctrl_val_param that points to
> uparams? That would remove cpu_no from resctrl_val_param
> and have everything available when a test needs to run ... not copying
> some user parameters into struct resctrl_val_param and passing
> others as parameters.
I'm a bit allergic to adding more stuff into resctrl_val_param. It seems
a structure where random stuff has been thrown at just because it exists.
In general, your point is very valid though because the members of
resctrl_val_param should be auditted through to see how many of them are
even useful after adding uparams and struct resctrl_test.
I could get rid of copying parameters from uparams to params and just
passing uparams instead of benchmark_cmd into resctrl_val(). Would you be
okay with that?
Oh, and I really should rename resctrl_val() one day to something more
meaningful too. :-) (but it won't be part of this series and will likely
be another conflicty nightmare because resctrl_val_param too needs to
be renamed...).
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists