From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34E14C48BC4 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8A53CF136 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:32:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 859653CCBD1 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:32:16 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9011D600822 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:32:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3B12239D; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:32:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708677134; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IVpu/wPzkxLvDiMzBzZBYPCrwd+LIA79GePTigxANY0=; b=eaFEJgbm1KSdyt70Zc8f1iEQp0LL5RM31UOqJxnbCtHUgV4weiitG5WF+UPyA28/Nh1rSO Jp5QJrReu0gKCH9OsAHTymIif1isPqrEAAjTUjREH1FW9I0NuQT8016znWLU8xTF8/g5st omzFWMbszDeyW0Y0+jQYS4xjHYJujjk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708677134; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IVpu/wPzkxLvDiMzBzZBYPCrwd+LIA79GePTigxANY0=; b=S8a22pYEPMkvB4j0uTljxxe+Hp6NGMfyKq3i+mVvO7B8dSs6ETFC+N9XuP37UwAD9Eyoj6 48rJDBp2xBsxsgDg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708677134; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IVpu/wPzkxLvDiMzBzZBYPCrwd+LIA79GePTigxANY0=; b=eaFEJgbm1KSdyt70Zc8f1iEQp0LL5RM31UOqJxnbCtHUgV4weiitG5WF+UPyA28/Nh1rSO Jp5QJrReu0gKCH9OsAHTymIif1isPqrEAAjTUjREH1FW9I0NuQT8016znWLU8xTF8/g5st omzFWMbszDeyW0Y0+jQYS4xjHYJujjk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708677134; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IVpu/wPzkxLvDiMzBzZBYPCrwd+LIA79GePTigxANY0=; b=S8a22pYEPMkvB4j0uTljxxe+Hp6NGMfyKq3i+mVvO7B8dSs6ETFC+N9XuP37UwAD9Eyoj6 48rJDBp2xBsxsgDg== Received: from imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1713513419; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:32:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([10.150.64.162]) by imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id YPGjBA5Y2GV7MwAAn2gu4w (envelope-from ); Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:32:14 +0000 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:32:12 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Li Wang Message-ID: <20240223083212.GA1423688@pevik> References: <20240222044119.28500-1-wegao@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.50 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.987]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-0.00)[39.85%] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1] swapoff01.c: Adjust blocks size base on pagesize X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi all, > Hi Wei, Cyril, > > > I do not think that this is a right solution though. Is there any reason > > > why we pass number of blocks to the make_swapfile instead of megabytes? > > @Li Wang, could you give some clue for above question(for why pass number > > of blocks instead of megabytes)? > I just keep the function interface like the original > (it wasn't designed by me:), but I guess the only > advantage is to test 1 block for different FS types. We use this function with 1 block, 10 blocks and 65536 blocks How about to have special function for 1 block and then other function which accepts MB? (e.g. 1 MB and 256 MB)? But could we first merge Yang Xu patchset so that he does not have to rebase it for ever? https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/list/?series=395713&state=* Also it'd be nice to have, but this can definitely wait after other things are solved. -int make_swapfile(const char *swapfile, int blocks, int safe) +int _make_swapfile(const char *swapfile, int blocks, int safe) +#define MAKE_SWAPFILE(const char *swapfile, int blocks, int safe) \ + _make_swapfile(swapfile, blocks, 0) +#define SAFE_SWAPFILE(const char *swapfile, int blocks, int safe) \ + _make_swapfile(swapfile, blocks, 1) Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp