On 8/11/25 6:23 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
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.

Thank you for the clarification

LGTM

Reviewed by: Donet Tom <donet...@linux.ibm.com>



Reply via email to