Re: [Patch v2 1/8] memblock tests: reserve the 129th memory block at all possible position

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:22:04PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 09:35:25AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:19:22AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> In stead of add 129th memory block at the last position, let's try all
> >> possible position.
> >
> >Why do you insist on changing the existing test rather than adding a new
> >one?
> > 
> 
> Sounds there is some misunderstanding between us.
> 
> I am not sure about your idea at first, so I sent a draft to confirm with you.
> Then I came up with another version which could trigger the overlap bug.
> 
> You mentioned to keep both and not objection to the first draft, which is the
> same as this one, I thought this is what you expect.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My intention was to keep the existing test and add
a new one rather than update the old test.
 
> Well, I will add a new one next round. Do you have some suggestion on the
> function name? memblock_reserve_many_all_position_check ?

How about memblock_reserve_all_locations_check?
 
> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c | 121 ++++++++++++-----------
> >>  1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
> > 
> >
> >-- 
> >Sincerely yours,
> >Mike.
> 
> -- 
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.