Re: [PATCH 3/3] move hugepage test examples to tools/testing/selftests/vm

From: Dave Young
Date: Mon Feb 06 2012 - 20:29:17 EST

On 02/07/2012 07:53 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:15:55 +0800
> Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> hugepage-mmap.c, hugepage-shm.c and map_hugetlb.c in Documentation/vm are
>> simple pass/fail tests, It's better to promote them to tools/testing/selftests
>> Thanks suggestion of Andrew Morton about this. They all need firstly setting up
>> proper nr_hugepages and hugepage-mmap need to mount hugetlbfs. So I add a shell
>> script run_test to do such work which will call the three test programs and
>> check the return value of them.
>> Changes to original code including below:
>> a. add run_test script
>> b. return error when read_bytes mismatch with writed bytes.
>> c. coding style fixes: do not use assignment in if condition
> I think Frederic is doing away with tools/testing/selftests/run_tests
> in favour of a Makefile target? ("make run_tests", for example).


> Until we see such a patch we cannot finalise your patch and if I apply
> your patch, his patch will need more work. Not that this is rocket
> science ;)


>> ...
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_test
> (We now have a "run_tests" and a "run_test". The difference in naming
> is irritating)

Yes, I'm just refer to the breakpoints/Makefile which will make a target

> Your vm/run_test file does quite a lot of work and we couldn't sensibly
> move all its functionality into Makefile, I expect.
> So I think it's OK to retain a script for this, but I do think that we
> should think up a standardized way of invoking it from vm/Makefile, so
> the top-level Makefile in tools/testing/selftests can simply do "cd
> vm;make run_test", where the run_test target exists in all
> subdirectories. The vm/Makefile run_test target can then call out to
> the script.

Frederic, do you have any idea about this?

> Also, please do not assume that the script has the x bit set. The x
> bit easily gets lost on kernel scripts (patch(1) can lose it) so it is
> safer to invoke the script via "/bin/sh script-name" or $SHELL or
> whatever.

Agree, and quilt can not keep the x bit as well, I have to use git to
create a executable shell script

> Anyway, we should work with Frederic on sorting out some standard
> behavior before we can finalize this work, please.

Fine, I can redo this after the standard behavior is out

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at