[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5640838e86add62f7e4bd811391fcc60b7ee42b1.camel@svanheule.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:18:55 +0200
From: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
To: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.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
Hi Maíra,
On Tue, 2022-08-09 at 19:26 -0300, Maíra Canal wrote:
> 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>
Thanks for testing again, and sorry for the trouble!
Best,
Sander
>
> > 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