Hi Ilpo,
On 5/30/24 4:56 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 5/20/24 5:30 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> Nothing during MBA test uses mongrp even if it has been defined ever
>>> since the introduction of the MBA test in the commit 01fee6b4d1f9
>>> ("selftests/resctrl: Add MBA test").
>>>
>>> Remove the mongrp from MBA test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c | 1 -
>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> index 9c9a4f22e529..5e0b1e794295 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
>>> @@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ static int mba_run_test(const struct resctrl_test *test,
>>> const struct user_param
>>> struct resctrl_val_param param = {
>>> .resctrl_val = MBA_STR,
>>> .ctrlgrp = "c1",
>>> - .mongrp = "m1",
>>> .filename = RESULT_FILE_NAME,
>>> .init = mba_init,
>>> .setup = mba_setup,
>>
>> This may explain the unexpected checks that are removed in final patch?
>
> While possible, I just have gotten a feeling that not much thought has
> been put on generality until now. Because of that, the solution had always
> been adding new ifs, no matter the place, instead of thinking how to
> parametrize things properly instead. It has lead to fully overlapping
> checks, dead code, and incomplete error handling which is hopefully now
> slowly getting less and less.
Ack. Your work is greatly appreciated.
Reinette