On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 01:16:46PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On 2026-04-18 06:54, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[email protected]> > > > > Both tests create a hugettlb mapping, fill it with data and verify the > > data, the only difference is that one uses file-backed memory and another > > one uses anonymous memory. > > > > Merge both tests into a single file. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile | 1 - > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mmap.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++----- > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/map_hugetlb.c | 88 ---------------- > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh | 1 - > > 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/mm/map_hugetlb.c > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile > > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile > > index cd24596cdd27..cbda989f6b6a 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile > > @@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES += hugepage-vmemmap > > TEST_GEN_FILES += khugepaged > > TEST_GEN_FILES += madv_populate > > TEST_GEN_FILES += map_fixed_noreplace > > -TEST_GEN_FILES += map_hugetlb > > TEST_GEN_FILES += map_populate > > ifneq (,$(filter $(ARCH),arm64 riscv riscv64 x86 x86_64 loongarch32 > > loongarch64)) > > TEST_GEN_FILES += memfd_secret > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mmap.c > > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mmap.c > > index d543419de040..f4fcc7c45875 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mmap.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mmap.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > > #include <unistd.h> > > #include <sys/mman.h> > > #include <fcntl.h> > > +#include "vm_util.h" > > #include "kselftest.h" > > #define LENGTH (256UL*1024*1024) > > @@ -25,54 +26,111 @@ static void check_bytes(char *addr) > > ksft_print_msg("First hex is %x\n", *((unsigned int *)addr)); > > } > > -static void write_bytes(char *addr) > > +static void write_bytes(char *addr, size_t length) > > { > > unsigned long i; > > - for (i = 0; i < LENGTH; i++) > > + for (i = 0; i < length; i++) > > *(addr + i) = (char)i; > > } > > -static int read_bytes(char *addr) > > +static bool verify_bytes(char *addr, size_t length) > > { > > unsigned long i; > > check_bytes(addr); > > - for (i = 0; i < LENGTH; i++) > > - if (*(addr + i) != (char)i) { > > - ksft_print_msg("Error: Mismatch at %lu\n", i); > > - return 1; > > - } > > - return 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < length; i++) > > + if (*(addr + i) != (char)i) > > + return false; > > Is there a good reason to drop the ksft_print_msg() call?
Probably not :) > It looks like a good debugging information. I'd also add the address to > it. Sure. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
