Re: [PATCH v2 21/26] selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test framework

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Ilpo,

On 11/20/2023 3:13 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...

> +
> +static bool cmt_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> +	return validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "llc_occupancy") &&
> +	       validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3", NULL);
> +}
> +
...

> +
> +static bool mba_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> +	return test_resource_feature_check(test) &&
> +	       validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "mbm_local_bytes");
> +}
> +

Could cmt_feature_check() not also use test_resource_feature_check(test)?
Why are cmt_feature_check() and mba_feature_check() different in this regard?

...

>  
> +/*
> + * resctrl_test:	resctrl test definition
> + * @name:		Test name
> + * @resource:		Resource to test (e.g., MB, L3, L2, etc.)
> + * @vendor_specific:	Bitmask for vendor-specific tests (can be 0 for universal tests)

I do not think these values were originally intended to be used in
a bitmask. The current values do make this possible but I would like to
suggest that their definition gets a comment to highlight how those
values are used.

The rest looks good to me. This is a good addition. Thank you.

Reinette