[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44743729-02f8-4c73-b6c3-9a1ca7dd28cd@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:32:18 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
shuah@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kirill@...temov.name, "Kirill A. Shutemov"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer
handling
On 11/27/24 09:35, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
...
> + switch (test->later) {
> + case GET_USER_USER:
> + /* Control group - properly tagger user pointer */
> + ptr = (void *)set_metadata((uint64_t)ptr, test->lam);
> + break;
s/tagger/tagged/ ?
> + default:
> + printf("Invalid test case value passed!\n");
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (ioctl(fd, FIOASYNC, ptr) != 0)
> + ret = 1;
> +
> + close(fd);
> +error:
> + munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE);
> + return ret;
> +}
I'd really prefer that the theory of operation be in a code comment and
not just in the changelog.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists