Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753264AbbGVWUP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:20:15 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46892 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752414AbbGVWUM (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:20:12 -0400
Message-ID: <1437603594.3298.5.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20150722150647.2597c7e5be9ee1eecc438b6f@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1437502184-14269-1-git-send-email-mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
	 <20150722150647.2597c7e5be9ee1eecc438b6f@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 957
Lines: 26

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to
> > libhugetlbfs as described at:
> > http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tests-for-fallocate-system-call/

Great!

> 
> I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests.  I wonder if that makes
> tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful?

Why harmful? Redundant, maybe(?). Does anyone even use selftests for
hugetlbfs regression testing? Lets see, we also have these:

- hugepage-{mmap,shm}.c
- map_hugetlb.c

There's probably a lot of room for improvement here.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/