Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests

Randy Dunlap
2010-04-16T15:13:06Z

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:42:39 +0900 Mitani wrote:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Dunlap [mailto:rdunlap@xenotime.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:20 AM
> > To: Mitani
> > Cc: 'Garrett Cooper'; ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:58:17 +0900 Mitani wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I suggest new patch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>
> >
> > This one is OK with me also, but...
> >
> > Is it possible to determine the difference between a kernel that does
> > not support hugepages at all and a kernel that does support hugepages
> > but just does not have enough of them allocated?
> >
> > or maybe we don't care about this difference. Do we?
> >
>
>
> I cannot give a good opinion because I'm not a creator of these test
> programs, but ...
> I think that the difference of test refusal reason isn't so important.
> How about following message? :
> ------------
> Not support Hugepages or not enough available Hugepages
> ------------
>
> If users read above message, they will examine a reason by themselves
> and will do appropriate measures (set an enough hugepages value or
> gave up this test), I think.

It's a better message IMO. If it doesn't cost anything to make the
error/problem messages better, then please do it.

thanks,
---
~Randy