Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] selftests/resctrl: Remove mongrp from MBA test

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Ilpo,

On 5/30/24 4:56 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 5/20/24 5:30 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> Nothing during MBA test uses mongrp even if it has been defined ever
>>> since the introduction of the MBA test in the commit 01fee6b4d1f9
>>> ("selftests/resctrl: Add MBA test").
>>>
>>> Remove the mongrp from MBA test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c | 1 -
>>>    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> index 9c9a4f22e529..5e0b1e794295 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> @@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ static int mba_run_test(const struct resctrl_test *test,
>>> const struct user_param
>>>    	struct resctrl_val_param param = {
>>>    		.resctrl_val	= MBA_STR,
>>>    		.ctrlgrp	= "c1",
>>> -		.mongrp		= "m1",
>>>    		.filename	= RESULT_FILE_NAME,
>>>    		.init		= mba_init,
>>>    		.setup		= mba_setup,
>>
>> This may explain the unexpected checks that are removed in final patch?
> 
> While possible, I just have gotten a feeling that not much thought has
> been put on generality until now. Because of that, the solution had always
> been adding new ifs, no matter the place, instead of thinking how to
> parametrize things properly instead. It has lead to fully overlapping
> checks, dead code, and incomplete error handling which is hopefully now
> slowly getting less and less.
  

Ack. Your work is greatly appreciated.

Reinette