On 2024-09-17 at 08:32:11 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >Hi Maciej, > >On 8/27/24 1:15 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote: >> On 2024-08-12 at 16:40:10 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> > On 7/12/24 2:04 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote: > >> > > + >> > > + if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && snc_unreliable) { >> > > + ksft_print_msg("Sub-NUMA Clustering could not be >> > > detected properly (see earlier messages for details).\n"); >> > > + ksft_print_msg("Intel CAT may be inaccurate.\n"); >> > > + } >> > >> > This is still relevant but unclear why previous message checked "ret" but >> > above does not. >> >> The above check tries to explain why a failure happened. >> >> This check is a reminder about a false positive - the test passes but >> "snc_unreliable" was set. I guess we could make this check to test "!ret"? > >Thinking about this more ... if the test results cannot be trusted at all >(whether tests pass or >fail) when snc_reliable is true then it seems more appropriate to just skip >these tests when >SNC detection is unreliable.
Okay, I'll just skip the test if the snc_unreliable is true. -- Kind regards Maciej Wieczór-Retman