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

[Igor Stoppa]

Hi,

On 24/10/18 06:27, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> a. It seems backwards (or upside down) to have a test case select a feature (PRMEM)
> instead of depending on that feature.
>
> b. Since PRMEM depends on MMU (in patch 04/17), the "select" here could try to
> enabled PRMEM even when MMU is not enabled.
>
> Changing this to "depends on PRMEM" would solve both of these issues.

The weird dependency you pointed out is partially caused by the 
incompleteness of PRMEM.

What I have in mind is to have a fallback version of it for systems 
without MMU capable of write protection.
Possibly defaulting to kvmalloc.
In that case there would not be any need for a configuration option.

> c. Don't use "default n".  That is already the default.

ok

--
igor