On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:01:13AM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
Alright, I'm fixing membarrier_test before, so.. I guess we have a competition.. =o)
Rafael, Alexey, what about simply wrap the test code with x86 and extend later with all archs which support zero address mapping?
tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
Index: linux-ml.git/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c
--- linux-ml.git.orig/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c +++ linux-ml.git/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-self-map-files-002.c @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ #include <sys/mman.h> #include <stdlib.h> +/*
- Should run on archs which support zero address mapping.
- */
+#if defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64)
static void pass(const char *fmt, unsigned long a, unsigned long b) { char name[64]; @@ -83,3 +88,12 @@ int main(void) return 0; }
+#else
+int main(void) +{
- return 0;
+}
+#endif
let me see if I got this right.. the premise for this test is to have *at least* 2 vmas, so we can check if the symlink for the mem range, describing the mapped area, is correct in procfs files, correct ? if yes, then why to have a totally duplicated test... just to check if mmap(0, ... MAP_FIXED ...) would work ?
Wouldn't exist a better place to have such test ? like in tools/testing/selftests/vm/mmap-null.c or something like it ? genuine curiosity.. thinking i'm missing something about this test...