On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
On 10/24/2023 2:26 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c index d3bf4368341e..5157a3f74fee 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c @@ -141,13 +141,13 @@ void mba_test_cleanup(void) remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME); } -int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd) +int mba_schemata_change(const struct user_params *uparams) { struct resctrl_val_param param = { .resctrl_val = MBA_STR, .ctrlgrp = "c1", .mongrp = "m1",
.cpu_no = cpu_no,
.cpu_no = uparams->cpu,@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd) remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
- ret = resctrl_val(benchmark_cmd, ¶m);
- ret = resctrl_val(uparams->benchmark_cmd, ¶m); if (ret) goto out;
How about a new member of struct resctrl_val_param that points to uparams? That would remove cpu_no from resctrl_val_param and have everything available when a test needs to run ... not copying some user parameters into struct resctrl_val_param and passing others as parameters.
I'm a bit allergic to adding more stuff into resctrl_val_param. It seems a structure where random stuff has been thrown at just because it exists. In general, your point is very valid though because the members of resctrl_val_param should be auditted through to see how many of them are even useful after adding uparams and struct resctrl_test.
I could get rid of copying parameters from uparams to params and just passing uparams instead of benchmark_cmd into resctrl_val(). Would you be okay with that?
Oh, and I really should rename resctrl_val() one day to something more meaningful too. :-) (but it won't be part of this series and will likely be another conflicty nightmare because resctrl_val_param too needs to be renamed...).