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

[Igor Stoppa]

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? */
>
> No.

ok

> 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?

--
igor