On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
I do not see a why two patch series are needed for the resctrl fixes. It may make it easier for everybody if it is handled as one patch series (with fixes first)?
Ok, I can put the fixes and cleanups into one series.
On 2/8/2023 1:30 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
From: Fenghua Yu fenghua.yu@intel.com
malloc_and_init_memory() in fill_buf isn't checking if memalign() successfully allocated memory or not before accessing the memory.
Check the return value of memalign() and return NULL if allocating aligned memory fails.
Fixes: a2561b12fe39 ("selftests/resctrl: Add built in benchmark") Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu fenghua.yu@intel.com
Missing your Signed-off-by?
These were intentionally. When I didn't modify the original patch at all during forward porting it, I just kept the original From and SoB as is. But from the doc you pointed me to, I see now x86 wants also handlers sobs.
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c index 56ccbeae0638..f4880c962ec4 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t s) size_t s64; void *p = memalign(PAGE_SIZE, s);
This may also be a good time to stop using an obsolete call?
Sure, I can add another patch to change that to posix_memalign().
- if (!p)
return p;Could you please return NULL explicitly?
I'll change it.
Thanks for you comments.