Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756671Ab2BGB3P (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:29:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31768 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756557Ab2BGB3O (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:29:14 -0500 Message-ID: <4F307EFC.5010400@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:31:40 +0800 From: Dave Young User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110323 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, penberg@kernel.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com, cl@linux.com, Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] move hugepage test examples to tools/testing/selftests/vm References: <20120205081555.GA2249@darkstar.redhat.com> <20120206155340.b9075240.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20120206155340.b9075240.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2681 Lines: 85 On 02/07/2012 07:53 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:15:55 +0800 > Dave Young wrote: > >> hugepage-mmap.c, hugepage-shm.c and map_hugetlb.c in Documentation/vm are >> simple pass/fail tests, It's better to promote them to tools/testing/selftests >> >> Thanks suggestion of Andrew Morton about this. They all need firstly setting up >> proper nr_hugepages and hugepage-mmap need to mount hugetlbfs. So I add a shell >> script run_test to do such work which will call the three test programs and >> check the return value of them. >> >> Changes to original code including below: >> a. add run_test script >> b. return error when read_bytes mismatch with writed bytes. >> c. coding style fixes: do not use assignment in if condition >> > > I think Frederic is doing away with tools/testing/selftests/run_tests > in favour of a Makefile target? ("make run_tests", for example). > > Until we see such a patch we cannot finalise your patch and if I apply > your patch, his patch will need more work. Not that this is rocket > science ;) Understand. > >> >> ... >> >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_test > > (We now have a "run_tests" and a "run_test". The difference in naming > is irritating) Yes, I'm just refer to the breakpoints/Makefile which will make a target breakpoints/run_test > > Your vm/run_test file does quite a lot of work and we couldn't sensibly > move all its functionality into Makefile, I expect. > > So I think it's OK to retain a script for this, but I do think that we > should think up a standardized way of invoking it from vm/Makefile, so > the top-level Makefile in tools/testing/selftests can simply do "cd > vm;make run_test", where the run_test target exists in all > subdirectories. The vm/Makefile run_test target can then call out to > the script. Frederic, do you have any idea about this? > > Also, please do not assume that the script has the x bit set. The x > bit easily gets lost on kernel scripts (patch(1) can lose it) so it is > safer to invoke the script via "/bin/sh script-name" or $SHELL or > whatever. Agree, and quilt can not keep the x bit as well, I have to use git to create a executable shell script > > Anyway, we should work with Frederic on sorting out some standard > behavior before we can finalize this work, please. > Fine, I can redo this after the standard behavior is out -- Thanks Dave -- 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/