Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:01:18 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
        lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "gost.dev@samsung.com" <gost.dev@samsung.com>,
        Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] test_xarray: add tests for advanced multi-index use
Message-ID: <ZVfUnhzv4UDigZKa@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20231104005747.1389762-2-da.gomez@samsung.com>
 <202311152254.610174ff-oliver.sang@intel.com>
 <ZVfS8fiudvHADtoR@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZVfT3bs9+F0jqIAw@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZVfT3bs9+F0jqIAw@casper.infradead.org>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 08:58:05PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:54:09PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Can be used in contexts which busy loop on large number of entries but can
> > + * sleep and timing is if no importance to test correctness.
> > + */
> > +#define XA_BUG_ON_RELAX(xa, x) do {				\
> > +	if ((tests_run % 1000) == 0)				\
> > +		schedule();					\
> > +	XA_BUG_ON(xa, x);					\
> > +} while (0)
> 
> That is awful.  Please don't do that.  You're mixing two completely
> unrelated thing into the same macro, which makes no sense.  Not only
> that, it's a macro which refers to something in the containing
> environment that isn't a paramter to the macro.

I figured you'd puke. Would you prefer I just open code the check on the loop
though? I'm sure another alternative is we *not care* about these
overloaded systems running the test. What would you prefer?

  Luis