Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert ctrlgrp & mongrp to pointers

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2136 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > The struct resctrl_val_param has control and monitor groups as char
> > arrays but they are not supposed to be mutated within resctrl_val().
> > 
> > Convert the ctrlgrp and mongrp char array within resctrl_val_param to
> > plain const char pointers and adjust the strlen() based checks to
> > check NULL instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h   | 4 ++--
> >  tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 8 ++++----
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
> > index 52769b075233..54e5bce4c698 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
> > @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ struct resctrl_test {
> >   */
> >  struct resctrl_val_param {
> >  	char		*resctrl_val;
> > -	char		ctrlgrp[64];
> > -	char		mongrp[64];
> > +	const char	*ctrlgrp;
> > +	const char	*mongrp;
> >  	char		filename[64];
> >  	unsigned long	mask;
> >  	int		num_of_runs;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> > index 79cf1c593106..dbe0cc6d74fa 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> > @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ static int create_grp(const char *grp_name, char *grp, const char *parent_grp)
> >  	 * length of grp_name == 0, it means, user wants to use root con_mon
> >  	 * grp, so do nothing
> >  	 */
> 
> Could you please confirm that the comments are still accurate?

It's not, I missed it.

> > -	if (strlen(grp_name) == 0)
> > +	if (!grp_name)
> >  		return 0;

But now when looking into the surrounding code, to me it looks the correct 
action here is to remove the comment and return -1 instead of 0. It makes
this just an internal sanity check that grp_name is provided by the 
caller.

-- 
 i.