On 29/05/26 11:27 am, Sarthak Sharma wrote:
> Hi Andrew!
>
> On 5/28/26 12:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 May 2026 19:54:27 +0530 Sarthak Sharma <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> gup_test.c currently serves two distinct purposes: microbenchmarking
>>> (GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK, PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK, PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK) and
>>> functional correctness testing (GUP_BASIC_TEST, PIN_BASIC_TEST,
>>> DUMP_USER_PAGES_TEST). Mixing these in a single binary means functional
>>> tests cannot be run or reported individually and run_vmtests.sh must
>>> invoke the binary multiple times with different flag combinations to
>>> cover all configurations.
>>>
>>> This patch series separates the two concerns: tools/mm/gup_bench for
>>> benchmarking and tools/testing/selftests/mm/gup_test for functional
>>> testing. To avoid duplicating HugeTLB and related file helpers, the
>>> series first prepares the existing file helpers for sharing, then moves
>>> the common helper code to tools/lib/mm/ so it can be shared by both
>>> selftests and tools/mm.
>>
>> Thanks. I'll duck this for now, see what reviewers have to say.
>>
>> Sashiko still has a couple of nags. Minor stuff, arguably ignorable.
>>
>> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]
>
> Thanks! I went through Sashiko's review.
>
> Both the points are valid but look very minor to me: one is a temporary
> x86 build issue fixed by the next patch and the other is stricter
For the sake of bisection, we try to make patches such that each patch
when applied one by one, does not break the build. Sashiko says that
applying this patch breaks mm-selftests build for x86, so this needs
to be fixed : )
Although if there is no other major review comment, instead of respinning
you could simply reply to this patch with a fix patch and Andrew can
incorporate that : )
> argument validation for -F in gup_bench.
>
> I don't feel they require a v5 on their own. Let's wait for reviewer
> feedback. If a respin is needed then I'll fold these cleanups in as well.
>
