Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] mm/selftests: Fix split_huge_page_test failure on systems with 64KB page size

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

>  >>diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/ 
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>  >>index eadbeb820d71..7cbeaebc9d71 100644
>  >>--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>  >>+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>  >>@@ -523,6 +523,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  >>       const char *fs_loc;
>  >>       bool created_tmp;
>  >>       int offset;
>  >>+      unsigned int max_order;
>  >>+      unsigned int nr_pages;
>  >>+      unsigned int tests;
>  >>
>  >>       ksft_print_header();
>  >>
>  >>@@ -534,35 +537,38 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  >>       if (argc > 1)
>  >>               optional_xfs_path = argv[1];
>  >>
>  >>-      ksft_set_plan(1+8+1+9+9+8*4+2);
>  >>-
>  >>       pagesize = getpagesize();
>  >>       pageshift = ffs(pagesize) - 1;
>  >>       pmd_pagesize = read_pmd_pagesize();
>  >>       if (!pmd_pagesize)
>  >>               ksft_exit_fail_msg("Reading PMD pagesize failed\n");
>  >>
>  >>+      nr_pages = pmd_pagesize / pagesize;
>  >>+      max_order =  sz2ord(pmd_pagesize);
>  >                     ^
>  >                     extra space here
>  >
>  >>+      tests = 2 + (max_order - 1) + (2 * max_order) + (max_order - 
> 1) * 4 + 2;
> 
> Is it possible to have some defines here instead plain numbers?
> Thanks

I assume we should look into using kselftest_harness as a separate 
effort, so we can avoid this manual test calculation completely. I'm 
afraid even using defines will not make this significntly more readable.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb