Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/resctrl: Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file

From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
To: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/resctrl: Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 13:54:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e59c4bb7-d6fe-ed43-0bfd-124e3930260b@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221005013933.1486054-4-tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi Shaopeng,

On 10/4/2022 6:39 PM, Shaopeng Tan wrote:
> Before exiting each test function(run_cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test()),
> test results("ok","not ok") are printed by ksft_test_result() and then
> temporary result files are cleaned by function 
> cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup().
> However, before running ksft_test_result(), 
> function cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup()
> has been run in each test function as follows:
>   cmt_resctrl_val()
>   cat_perf_miss_val()
>   mba_schemata_change()
>   mbm_bw_change()
> 
> Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> index df0d8d8526fc..8732cf736528 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void run_mbm_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
>  	ksft_test_result(!res, "MBM: bw change\n");
>  	if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res)
>  		ksft_print_msg("Intel MBM may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n");
> -	mbm_test_cleanup();
>  }
>  
>  static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
> @@ -107,7 +106,6 @@ static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
>  		sprintf(benchmark_cmd[1], "%d", span);
>  	res = mba_schemata_change(cpu_no, bw_report, benchmark_cmd);
>  	ksft_test_result(!res, "MBA: schemata change\n");
> -	mba_test_cleanup();
>  }
>  
>  static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no)
> @@ -126,7 +124,6 @@ static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no)
>  	ksft_test_result(!res, "CMT: test\n");
>  	if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res)
>  		ksft_print_msg("Intel CMT may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n");
> -	cmt_test_cleanup();
>  }
>  
>  static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits)
> @@ -142,7 +139,6 @@ static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits)
>  
>  	res = cat_perf_miss_val(cpu_no, no_of_bits, "L3");
>  	ksft_test_result(!res, "CAT: test\n");
> -	cat_test_cleanup();
>  }
>  
>  int main(int argc, char **argv)

I think this is the right direction ... but you fell into the trap that I
warned you about in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/bdb19cf6-dd4b-2042-7cda-7f6108e543aa@intel.com/
- search for "please be careful".

Reinette