Re: [Patch v2] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>]

On 8/11/25 6:23 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 07:07:47PM +0530, Donet Tom wrote:
>> On 8/10/25 1:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for
>>> check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based
>>> on a number passed in.
>>>
>>> Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>>> Cc: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>>> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>>     * use mm-new
>>>     * add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit
>>>     * adjust the change log a little
>>>     * drop RB and resend
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++---
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len)
>>>    	return result;
>>>    }
>>> -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len)
>>> +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len)
>>
>> We are re-adding this argument because nr_hpages should be the same in both
>> split_pmd_zero_pages and verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes,
>> correct? I was just wondering — since the value is currently hardcoded
>> in both functions, would it be preferable to pass it as an argument,
>> or keep it hardcoded, What benefit do we gain by re-adding this argument?
>>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> It looks the correct way to do so.

Thank you for the clarification

LGTM

Reviewed by: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>

>