Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection

From: Igor Stoppa
Date: Mon Oct 29 2018 - 14:16:22 EST

On 25/10/2018 17:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
+static bool is_address_protected(void *p)
+ struct page *page;
+ struct vmap_area *area;
+ if (unlikely(!is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
+ return false;
+ page = vmalloc_to_page(p);
+ if (unlikely(!page))
+ return false;
+ wmb(); /* Flush changes to the page table - is it needed? */



The rest of this is just pretty verbose and seems to have been very
heavily copied and pasted. I guess that's OK for test code, though.

I was tempted to play with macros, as templates to generate tests on the fly, according to the type being passed.

But I was afraid it might generate an even stronger rejection than the rest of the patchset already has.

Would it be acceptable/preferable?