Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/4] Hugetlb: Add new tst_test options for hugeltb test support

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> Why not consider encapsulating these two new fields in 'struct
> tst_hugepage' ?
> 
> Then the tst_test in the case can simply initialize to:
> 
> ....
> static struct tst_test test = {
>     .needs_root = 1,
>     .taint_check = TST_TAINT_D | TST_TAINT_W,
>     .setup = setup,
>     .test_all = run_test,
>     .hugepages = {1, TST_NEEDS, 1, 1},
> };

I do not like that we have magic constants in the .hugepages that are
not self describing. I would treat the hugetltbfs just as we treat
devfs, that would be:

#define MNTPOINT "hugetlbfs/"
#define HUGEFILE MNTPOINT "hugefile"

static int huge_fd;

static void setup(void)
{
	huge_fd = tst_creat_unlinked(HUGEFILE);
	...
}

static void cleanup(void)
{
	if (huge_fd > 0)
		SAFE_CLOSE(huge_fd);
}

static struct tst_test test = {
	...
	.mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
	.needs_hugetlbfs = 1,
	.setup = setup,
	.cleanup = cleanup,
	...
}


What do you think?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp