[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACG_h5o5=DXFtNzHn+NzY0rRjbZXhjrs58ka042hoOsVFFHnkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 03:10:18 +0530
From: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] lib/test_bitmap.c: Add for_each_set_clump test cases
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:48:46AM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:
> > The introduction of the generic for_each_set_clump macro need test
> > cases to verify the implementation. This patch adds test cases for
> > scenarios in which clump sizes are 8 bits, 24 bits, 30 bits and 6 bits.
> > The cases contain situations where clump is getting split at the word
> > boundary and also when zeroes are present in the start and middle of
> > bitmap.
>
> Thanks for an update. Looks pretty much okay to me, though one nit below.
> After addressing,
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v6:
> > - Make 'for loop' inside 'test_for_each_set_clump' more succinct.
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> > - No change.
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Use 'for' loop in test function of 'for_each_set_clump'.
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - No Change.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Unify different tests for 'for_each_set_clump'. Pass test data as
> > function parameters.
> > - Remove unnecessary bitmap_zero calls.
> >
> > lib/test_bitmap.c | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 142 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > index 6b13150667f5..673c512a5bbd 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > @@ -155,6 +155,38 @@ static bool __init __check_eq_clump8(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool __init __check_eq_clump(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> > + const unsigned int offset,
> > + const unsigned int size,
> > + const unsigned long *const clump_exp,
> > + const unsigned long *const clump,
> > + const unsigned long clump_size)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long exp;
> > +
> > + if (offset >= size) {
> > + pr_warn("[%s:%u] bit offset for clump out-of-bounds: expected less than %u, got %u\n",
> > + srcfile, line, size, offset);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + exp = clump_exp[offset / clump_size];
> > + if (!exp) {
> > + pr_warn("[%s:%u] bit offset for zero clump: expected nonzero clump, got bit offset %u with clump value 0",
> > + srcfile, line, offset);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (*clump != exp) {
> > + pr_warn("[%s:%u] expected clump value of 0x%lX, got clump value of 0x%lX",
> > + srcfile, line, exp, *clump);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > #define __expect_eq(suffix, ...) \
> > ({ \
> > int result = 0; \
> > @@ -172,6 +204,7 @@ static bool __init __check_eq_clump8(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> > #define expect_eq_pbl(...) __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define expect_eq_u32_array(...) __expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define expect_eq_clump8(...) __expect_eq(clump8, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > +#define expect_eq_clump(...) __expect_eq(clump, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > static void __init test_zero_clear(void)
> > {
> > @@ -577,6 +610,28 @@ static void noinline __init test_mem_optimisations(void)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static const unsigned long clump_bitmap_data[] __initconst = {
> > + 0x38000201,
> > + 0x05ff0f38,
> > + 0xeffedcba,
> > + 0xbbbbabcd,
> > + 0x000000aa,
> > + 0x000000aa,
> > + 0x00ff0000,
> > + 0xaaaaaa00,
> > + 0xff000000,
> > + 0x00aa0000,
> > + 0x00000000,
> > + 0x00000000,
> > + 0x00000000,
> > + 0x0f000000,
> > + 0x00ff0000,
> > + 0xaaaaaa00,
> > + 0xff000000,
> > + 0x00aa0000,
> > + 0x00000ac0,
> > +};
> > +
> > static const unsigned char clump_exp[] __initconst = {
> > 0x01, /* 1 bit set */
> > 0x02, /* non-edge 1 bit set */
> > @@ -588,6 +643,92 @@ static const unsigned char clump_exp[] __initconst = {
> > 0x05, /* non-adjacent 2 bits set */
> > };
> >
> > +static const unsigned long clump_exp1[] __initconst = {
> > + 0x01, /* 1 bit set */
> > + 0x02, /* non-edge 1 bit set */
> > + 0x00, /* zero bits set */
> > + 0x38, /* 3 bits set across 4-bit boundary */
> > + 0x38, /* Repeated clump */
> > + 0x0F, /* 4 bits set */
> > + 0xFF, /* all bits set */
> > + 0x05, /* non-adjacent 2 bits set */
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const unsigned long clump_exp2[] __initconst = {
> > + 0xfedcba, /* 24 bits */
> > + 0xabcdef,
> > + 0xaabbbb, /* Clump split between 2 words */
> > + 0x000000, /* zeroes in between */
> > + 0x0000aa,
> > + 0x000000,
> > + 0x0000ff,
> > + 0xaaaaaa,
> > + 0x000000,
> > + 0x0000ff,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const unsigned long clump_exp3[] __initconst = {
> > + 0x00000000, /* starting with 0s*/
> > + 0x00000000, /* All 0s */
> > + 0x00000000,
> > + 0x00000000,
> > + 0x3f00000f, /* Non zero set */
> > + 0x2aa80003,
> > + 0x00000aaa,
> > + 0x00003fc0,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const unsigned long clump_exp4[] __initconst = {
> > + 0x00,
> > + 0x2b,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct clump_test_data {
>
> > + unsigned long data[256];
>
> DECLARE_BITMAP() ?
>
> > + unsigned long count;
> > + unsigned long offset;
> > + unsigned long limit;
> > + unsigned long clump_size;
> > + unsigned long const *exp;
>
> > +} clump_test_data[] = { {{0}, 2, 0, 64, 8, clump_exp1},
> > + {{0}, 8, 2, 240, 24, clump_exp2},
> > + {{0}, 8, 10, 240, 30, clump_exp3},
> > + {{0}, 1, 18, 18, 6, clump_exp4} };
>
> Please, split structure definition and test data.
>
> > +
I have incorporated your above 2 review comments.
I will be sharing the new (v7) patchset in some time with your
'Reviewed-by' tag included in this patch. I believe I have understood
correctly.
Regards
Syed Nayyar Waris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists