Re: [PATCH v2 21/26] selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test framework

Reinette Chatre
2023-11-28T22:20:20Z

Hi Ilpo,

On 11/20/2023 3:13 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...

> +
> +static bool cmt_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> + return validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "llc_occupancy") &&
> + validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3", NULL);
> +}
> +
...

> +
> +static bool mba_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> + return test_resource_feature_check(test) &&
> + validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "mbm_local_bytes");
> +}
> +

Could cmt_feature_check() not also use test_resource_feature_check(test)?
Why are cmt_feature_check() and mba_feature_check() different in this regard?

...

>
> +/*
> + * resctrl_test: resctrl test definition
> + * @name: Test name
> + * @resource: Resource to test (e.g., MB, L3, L2, etc.)
> + * @vendor_specific: Bitmask for vendor-specific tests (can be 0 for universal tests)

I do not think these values were originally intended to be used in
a bitmask. The current values do make this possible but I would like to
suggest that their definition gets a comment to highlight how those
values are used.

The rest looks good to me. This is a good addition. Thank you.

Reinette