[PATCH v2 5/5] memblock tests: remove completed TODO item

[PATCH v2 5/5] memblock tests: remove completed TODO item

[Rebecca Mckeever]

Remove completed item from TODO list.

Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/memblock/TODO | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/TODO b/tools/testing/memblock/TODO
index 33044c634ea7..cb7fac47a643 100644
--- a/tools/testing/memblock/TODO
+++ b/tools/testing/memblock/TODO
@@ -8,10 +8,5 @@ TODO
                 likely that the current MEM_SIZE won't be enough for these
                 test cases. Use realloc to adjust the size accordingly.
 
-2. Add test cases using this functions (implement them for both directions):
-   + memblock_alloc_raw()
-   + memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw()
-   + memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw()
-
-3. Add tests for memblock_alloc_node() to check if the correct NUMA node is set
+2. Add tests for memblock_alloc_node() to check if the correct NUMA node is set
    for the new region
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] memblock tests: remove completed TODO item

[David Hildenbrand]

On 03.10.22 01:41, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> Remove completed item from TODO list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] memblock tests: add range tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw

[David Hildenbrand]

On 03.10.22 01:41, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> Add tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() that are very similar to
> the range tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/memblock/Makefile               |    2 +-
>   tools/testing/memblock/main.c                 |    2 +
>   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c      | 1208 +++++++++++++++++
>   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h      |    9 +
>   4 files changed, 1220 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> index 246f7ac8489b..2310ac4d080e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ CFLAGS += -I. -I../../include -Wall -O2 -fsanitize=address \
>   LDFLAGS += -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined
>   TARGETS = main
>   TEST_OFILES = tests/alloc_nid_api.o tests/alloc_helpers_api.o tests/alloc_api.o \
> -		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o
> +		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.o
>   DEP_OFILES = memblock.o lib/slab.o mmzone.o slab.o
>   OFILES = main.o $(DEP_OFILES) $(TEST_OFILES)
>   EXTR_SRC = ../../../mm/memblock.c
> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> index 4ca1024342b1..278f9dec5008 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>   #include "tests/alloc_api.h"
>   #include "tests/alloc_helpers_api.h"
>   #include "tests/alloc_nid_api.h"
> +#include "tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h"
>   #include "tests/common.h"
>   
>   int main(int argc, char **argv)
> @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>   	memblock_alloc_checks();
>   	memblock_alloc_helpers_checks();
>   	memblock_alloc_nid_checks();
> +	memblock_alloc_exact_nid_checks();
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }


memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves exactly the way 
memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves -- which is essentially 
memblock_alloc_raw().

So do we really need a separate set of tests for these?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] memblock tests: add range tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:16:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.10.22 01:41, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Add tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() that are very similar to
> > the range tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/memblock/Makefile               |    2 +-
> >   tools/testing/memblock/main.c                 |    2 +
> >   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c      | 1208 +++++++++++++++++
> >   .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h      |    9 +
> >   4 files changed, 1220 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c
> >   create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > index 246f7ac8489b..2310ac4d080e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ CFLAGS += -I. -I../../include -Wall -O2 -fsanitize=address \
> >   LDFLAGS += -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined
> >   TARGETS = main
> >   TEST_OFILES = tests/alloc_nid_api.o tests/alloc_helpers_api.o tests/alloc_api.o \
> > -		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o
> > +		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.o
> >   DEP_OFILES = memblock.o lib/slab.o mmzone.o slab.o
> >   OFILES = main.o $(DEP_OFILES) $(TEST_OFILES)
> >   EXTR_SRC = ../../../mm/memblock.c
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > index 4ca1024342b1..278f9dec5008 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> >   #include "tests/alloc_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/alloc_helpers_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/alloc_nid_api.h"
> > +#include "tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h"
> >   #include "tests/common.h"
> >   int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >   	memblock_alloc_checks();
> >   	memblock_alloc_helpers_checks();
> >   	memblock_alloc_nid_checks();
> > +	memblock_alloc_exact_nid_checks();
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> 
> 
> memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves exactly the way
> memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves -- which is essentially
> memblock_alloc_raw().
> 
> So do we really need a separate set of tests for these?
> 
Instead of a separate set of tests, I could add a flag for
memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() to test_flags so that the range tests in
alloc_nid_api.c could be run with that flag. Do you think I should do
that, or omit tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE)
altogether?

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
Thanks,
Rebecca

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] memblock tests: add range tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw

[David Hildenbrand]

On 11.10.22 06:19, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:16:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03.10.22 01:41, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
>>> Add tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() that are very similar to
>>> the range tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/memblock/Makefile               |    2 +-
>>>    tools/testing/memblock/main.c                 |    2 +
>>>    .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c      | 1208 +++++++++++++++++
>>>    .../memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h      |    9 +
>>>    4 files changed, 1220 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.c
>>>    create mode 100644 tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
>>> index 246f7ac8489b..2310ac4d080e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/Makefile
>>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ CFLAGS += -I. -I../../include -Wall -O2 -fsanitize=address \
>>>    LDFLAGS += -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined
>>>    TARGETS = main
>>>    TEST_OFILES = tests/alloc_nid_api.o tests/alloc_helpers_api.o tests/alloc_api.o \
>>> -		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o
>>> +		  tests/basic_api.o tests/common.o tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.o
>>>    DEP_OFILES = memblock.o lib/slab.o mmzone.o slab.o
>>>    OFILES = main.o $(DEP_OFILES) $(TEST_OFILES)
>>>    EXTR_SRC = ../../../mm/memblock.c
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
>>> index 4ca1024342b1..278f9dec5008 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/main.c
>>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>>>    #include "tests/alloc_api.h"
>>>    #include "tests/alloc_helpers_api.h"
>>>    #include "tests/alloc_nid_api.h"
>>> +#include "tests/alloc_exact_nid_api.h"
>>>    #include "tests/common.h"
>>>    int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>    	memblock_alloc_checks();
>>>    	memblock_alloc_helpers_checks();
>>>    	memblock_alloc_nid_checks();
>>> +	memblock_alloc_exact_nid_checks();
>>>    	return 0;
>>>    }
>>
>>
>> memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves exactly the way
>> memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE) behaves -- which is essentially
>> memblock_alloc_raw().
>>
>> So do we really need a separate set of tests for these?
>>
> Instead of a separate set of tests, I could add a flag for
> memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() to test_flags so that the range tests in
> alloc_nid_api.c could be run with that flag. Do you think I should do
> that, or omit tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(NUMA_NO_NODE)
> altogether?

Good question. From an API point of view, it makes sense to test that 
API somehow. With implementation in mind, it doesn't make too much sense 
to test it twice.

Whatever you prefer :) Just wanted to point out that separate tests 
don't make sense -- using a flag would be cleaner.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb