[PATCH v3 2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value()
Yury Norov
yury.norov at gmail.com
Mon Jul 17 09:11:50 PDT 2023
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> longs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>
Thanks for the test!
> ---
> This patch was previously called
> "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"
>
> v3:
> - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value()
> - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(),
> as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB.
> ---
> lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> return true;
> }
>
> +static bool __init
> +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> + const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x)
> +{
> + if (exp_ulong != x) {
> + pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n",
> + srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x);
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
>
> static bool __init
> __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> })
>
> #define expect_eq_uint(...) __expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define expect_eq_ulong(...) __expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> #define expect_eq_bitmap(...) __expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> #define expect_eq_pbl(...) __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> #define expect_eq_u32_array(...) __expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void)
> BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25));
> }
>
> +static void __init test_set_get_value(void)
> +{
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
It's too short. Can you make it long enough to ensure it works as
expected when start is not in the 1st word, and start+nbits is in
the following word.
> + unsigned long val;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) {
> + bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
> + bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5);
> + val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5);
> + expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val);
Can you also check that the rest of bitmap is untouched?
Something like:
DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, ...);
DECLARE_BITMAP(orig, ...);
memset(orig, 0x5a, ...);
memset(bitmap, 0x5a, ...);
for (j = start; j < start + nbits; j++)
if (val & BIT(j - start))
__set_bit(j, orig);
else
__clear_bit(j, orig);
bitmap_set_value(bitmap, val, start, nbits);
expect_eq_bitmap(orig, bitmap, ...);
I like this kind of testing because it gives people a better
understanding of what happens behind all that optimization tricks.
Thanks,
Yury
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list