[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15acd7ab-e624-b2ee-cde5-100b69cf7206@riseup.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 19:26:13 -0300
From: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
To: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] lib/test_cpumask: drop cpu_possible_mask full test
On 8/9/22 15:08, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> cpu_possible_mask is not necessarily completely filled. That means
> running a check on cpumask_full() doesn't make sense, so drop the test.
>
> Fixes: c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test suite")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/346cb279-8e75-24b0-7d12-9803f2b41c73@riseup.net/
> Reported-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
Tested-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> ---
> lib/test_cpumask.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_cpumask.c b/lib/test_cpumask.c
> index a31a1622f1f6..4ebf9f5805f3 100644
> --- a/lib/test_cpumask.c
> +++ b/lib/test_cpumask.c
> @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ static cpumask_t mask_all;
> static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test)
> {
> KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty));
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_full(cpu_possible_mask));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_full(&mask_all));
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, cpumask_weight(&mask_empty));
Powered by blists - more mailing lists