On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:12:14 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:13:29AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > Based on an original patch by Yury Norov: introduce a test for > > bitmap_cut() that also makes sure functionality is as described for > > partially overlapping src and dst. > > > Co-authored-by: Yury Norov <[email protected]> > > Co-developed-by (and it requires Yury's SoB as well). Oops, sorry, I didn't remember this part from submitting-patches.rst correctly. Thanks for pointing this out. Yury, let me know if I should re-post with both Co-authored-by: and Signed-off-by: you -- otherwise I'll repost without both. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <[email protected]> > > ... > > > +static struct test_bitmap_cut test_cut[] = { > > + { 0, 0, 8, { 0x0000000aUL, }, { 0x0000000aUL, }, }, > > + { 0, 0, 32, { 0xdadadeadUL, }, { 0xdadadeadUL, }, }, > > + { 0, 3, 8, { 0x000000aaUL, }, { 0x00000015UL, }, }, > > + { 3, 3, 8, { 0x000000aaUL, }, { 0x00000012UL, }, }, > > + { 0, 1, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x52d2d2d2UL, }, }, > > + { 0, 8, 32, { 0xdeadc0deUL, }, { 0x00deadc0UL, }, }, > > + { 1, 1, 32, { 0x5a5a5a5aUL, }, { 0x2d2d2d2cUL, }, }, > > + { 0, 15, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x00014b4bUL, }, }, > > + { 0, 16, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0000a5a5UL, }, }, > > + { 15, 15, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x000125a5UL, }, }, > > + { 15, 16, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0000a5a5UL, }, }, > > + { 16, 15, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0001a5a5UL, }, }, > > + > > + { BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG, > > + { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, > > + { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, > > + }, > > + { 1, BITS_PER_LONG - 1, BITS_PER_LONG, > > + { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, > > + { 0x00000001UL, 0x00000001UL, }, > > + }, > > + > > + { 0, BITS_PER_LONG * 2, BITS_PER_LONG * 2 + 1, > > + { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0x00000001UL, 0x00000001UL, 0x00000001UL }, > > Perhaps leave comma as well? I have a full explicit initialiser for this one, hence the "missing" comma, I find it clearer. Any specific reason why I should add it? > > > + { 0x00000001UL, }, > > + }, > > + { 16, BITS_PER_LONG * 2 + 1, BITS_PER_LONG * 2 + 1 + 16, > > > + { 0x0000ffffUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL }, > > Ditto. > > > + { 0x2d2dffffUL, }, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +static void __init test_bitmap_cut(void) > > +{ > > + unsigned long b[4], *in = &b[1], *out = &b[0]; /* Partial overlap */ > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_cut); i++) { > > + struct test_bitmap_cut *t = &test_cut[i]; > > + > > + memcpy(in, t->in, sizeof(t->in)); > > + > > + bitmap_cut(out, in, t->first, t->cut, t->nbits); > > > + if (!bitmap_equal(out, t->expected, t->nbits)) { > > + pr_err("bitmap_cut failed: expected %*pb, got %*pb\n", > > + t->nbits, t->expected, t->nbits, out); > > + } > > Perhaps > > if (bitmap_equal(...)) > continue; > > ... > > ? That's five lines instead of four (I can't get pr_err() on one line anyway) and it looks less straightforward: "if it doesn't match we have an error" vs. "if it matches go to next case. We have an error". Any specific reason I'm missing? -- Stefano
