> On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:47 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> The primary goal here is not finding regressions but having clearly
> defined semantics of the page table accessors across architectures. x86
> and arm64 are a good starting point and other architectures will be
> enabled as they are aligned to the same semantics.
This still does not answer the fundamental question. If this test is simply
inefficient to find bugs, who wants to spend time to use it regularly? If this
is just one off test that may get running once in a few years (when introducing
a new arch), how does it justify the ongoing cost to maintain it?
I do agree there could be a need to clearly define this thing but that belongs
to documentation rather than testing purpose. It is confusing to mix this with
other config options which have somewhat a different purpose, it will then be a
waste of time for people who mistakenly enable this for regular automatic
testing and never found any bug from it.
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
