From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Message-ID: <1437603594.3298.5.camel@stgolabs.net> References: <1437502184-14269-1-git-send-email-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> <20150722150647.2597c7e5be9ee1eecc438b6f@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150722150647.2597c7e5be9ee1eecc438b6f-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mike Kravetz , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Dave Hansen , Naoya Horiguchi , David Rientjes , Hugh Dickins , Aneesh Kumar , Hillf Danton , Christoph Hellwig , Michal Hocko List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz 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.