On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 08:19:54 -0700 SJ Park <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 23:08:41 +0800 Kunwu Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 22:47:42 -0700 SJ Park <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > Both `sample_interval` and `aggr_interval` are zero here. Since > > `sample_interval` is the denominator in `damon_nr_samples_per_aggr()`, > > would it be better to keep `aggr_interval` non-zero when testing the > > zero `sample_interval` case? > > > > This would make the test explicitly cover the divide-by-zero protection. > > If the `aggr_interval == 0` behavior is also worth covering, perhaps it > > could be tested separately. > > Thank you for your review and question, Kunwu! > > Yes, that kind of additional test case would be nice. Please feel free to > post > a patch if you'd like to! :) And no pressure, no rush. I will also consider > doing it myself if it seems you are not interested.
Thanks for the feedback, SJ! I will prepare a small follow-up patch for this test clarity improvement. Reviewed-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]> Thanks, Kunwu > > > Thanks, > SJ > > [...] > Sent using hkml (https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail)
