Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] selftests: mm: Add a test for remapping within a range

[Joel Fernandes]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 10:57:59AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 01:54:59AM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Move a block of memory within a memory range. Any alignment optimization
> > on the source address may cause corruption. Verify using kselftest that
> > it works. I have also verified with tracing that such optimization does
> > not happen due to this check in can_align_down():
> >
> > if (!for_stack && vma->vm_start <= addr_masked)
> > 	return false;
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/mm/mremap_test.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mremap_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mremap_test.c
> > index d7366074e2a8..f45d1abedc9c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mremap_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mremap_test.c
> > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >  #define VALIDATION_NO_THRESHOLD 0	/* Verify the entire region */
> >
> >  #define MIN(X, Y) ((X) < (Y) ? (X) : (Y))
> > +#define SIZE_MB(m) ((size_t)m * (1024 * 1024))
> 
> Nit in this instance since you always just use an integer, but generally
> for good practice's sake - shouldn't we place m in parens e.g. (size_t)(m)
> to avoid broken macro expansion?

Sure, I'll do that. Thanks.

> I drew a little diagram for myself and was thereby convinced this was a good test, therefore,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks a lot!

 - Joel