[CRIU] [PATCH] zdtm/static/maps06: removed hardcoded page-size

[Adrian Reber]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:12:51PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> 2018-06-06 15:52 GMT+01:00 Adrian Reber <areber at redhat.com>:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> 2018-06-05 20:58 GMT+01:00 Adrian Reber <adrian at lisas.de>:
> >> [..]
> >> > @@ -23,21 +23,26 @@ int main(int argc, char ** argv)
> >> >         if (fd < 0)
> >> >                 return 1;
> >> >
> >> > -       ftruncate(fd, 4096);
> >> > +       ftruncate(fd, ps);
> >> > +
> >> > +       if (ps == 0x1000)
> >> > +               test_size = 10240;
> >> > +       else
> >> > +               test_size = 512;
> >>
> >> Is it worth to calculate test_size dynamically based on ps?
> >> Like will the test work on both 16k and 64k pages?
> >
> > Without that the test failed as the result (ps * test_size *4) for mmap()'s
> > length overflowed. I have not checked if it works when changing ps or
> > test_size to a 64bit value.
> 
> No, what I meant is that you've chosen 512 static value.
> Will the test work both for 16k and 64k pages?
> Or test_size will differ between 16k/64k - then probably
> it would be worth to calculate it with a division.

I first thought that was what you were asking, but then I was not so
sure any more. Yes, for 16K pages it is not perfect. That is correct.

I only tested with 64K a 4K pages.

I thought about a division, but wanted to keep it simple.

I can do a new version with a division.

		Adrian