On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 07:07:47PM +0530, Donet Tom wrote: > >On 8/10/25 1:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote: >> Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for >> check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based >> on a number passed in. >> >> Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiy...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linux.alibaba.com> >> Cc: Donet Tom <donet...@linux.ibm.com> >> Cc: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> Cc: Dev Jain <dev.j...@arm.com> >> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoa...@oracle.com> >> Cc: Zi Yan <z...@nvidia.com> >> >> --- >> v2: >> * use mm-new >> * add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit >> * adjust the change log a little >> * drop RB and resend >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c >> index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c >> @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) >> return result; >> } >> -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, >> size_t len) >> +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int >> nr_hpages, size_t len) > > >We are re-adding this argument because nr_hpages should be the same in both >split_pmd_zero_pages and verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes, >correct? I was just wondering — since the value is currently hardcoded >in both functions, would it be preferable to pass it as an argument, >or keep it hardcoded, What benefit do we gain by re-adding this argument? >
Thanks for your comment. It looks the correct way to do so. -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
