Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:43:53 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] bitmap: Add test for bitmap_cut() |
| |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 01:08:25PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:46:16 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:41:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 07:40:54PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > > Inspired by an original patch from Yury Norov: introduce a test for > > > > bitmap_cut() that also makes sure functionality is as described for > > > > partially overlapping src and dst. > > > > > > Taking into account recent fixes for BE 64-bit, do we have test cases for a such? > > > > It might be enough to have only these, but perhaps s390 guys can help? > > There's no behaviour difference due to endianness in this test itself -- > just word size was a topic, hence that BITS_PER_LONG usage with > redundant values (checked on i686). > > That is, if you have: > { 0x0000ffffUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL, 0x5a5a5a5aUL }, > > then 1 as array subscript always denotes the second item (from the left) > there, it doesn't matter how and where different architectures store it. > > Indeed, if bitmap_cut() directly addressed single bytes within the > words, I would need to pay special attention there. The values I picked > for these tests are also meant to show any issue in that sense. > > > Alexander, can you apply this patch (w/o the first one, which is suppose to > > fix) and confirm that you have test case failure, followed by applying first > > one and confirm a fix? > > I did that already on s390x (of course, I thought :)), I can confirm > that. Without patch 1/2 the test also fails there: > > [ 20.917848] test_bitmap: [lib/test_bitmap.c:666] bitmaps contents differ: expected "0-16,18-19,21,24,26-27,29", got "1,3-4,6,9,11-12,14,16,18-19,21,24,26-27,29"
Thanks! Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> If Alexander wants to test this on a z14 or z15, sure, it won't harm.
Sure.
> By the way, tests for 'parse', 'parse_user' and 'parselist' report > issues:
I believe this [1] will fix it.
[1]: 81c4f4d924d5 ("lib: fix bitmap_parse() on 64-bit big endian archs")
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |