Hi Andy,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Explicitly test bitmap_zero() and bitmap_clear() functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> lib/test_bitmap.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index de7ef2996a07..9734af711816 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -105,6 +105,35 @@ __check_eq_u32_array(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__)
>
> +static void __init test_zero_clear(void)
> +{
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
> +
> + /* Known way to set all bits */
Nit: if you start your comments with capital, proceed that way till
the end.
> + memset(bmap, 0xff, 128);
> +
> + expect_eq_pbl("0-22", bmap, 23);
> + expect_eq_pbl("0-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> + /* single-word bitmaps */
> + bitmap_clear(bmap, 0, 9);
> + expect_eq_pbl("9-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> + bitmap_zero(bmap, 35);
> + expect_eq_pbl("64-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> + /* cross boundaries operations */
> + bitmap_clear(bmap, 79, 19);
> + expect_eq_pbl("64-78,98-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> + bitmap_zero(bmap, 115);
> + expect_eq_pbl("128-1023", bmap, 1024);
> +
> + /* Zeroing entire area */
> + bitmap_zero(bmap, 1024);
> + expect_eq_pbl("", bmap, 1024);
> +}
> +
> static void __init test_zero_fill_copy(void)
> {
> DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap1, 1024);
> @@ -309,6 +338,7 @@ static void noinline __init test_mem_optimisations(void)
>
> static int __init test_bitmap_init(void)
> {
> + test_zero_clear();
> test_zero_fill_copy();
> test_bitmap_arr32();
> test_bitmap_parselist();
I don't understand what patch #4 is doing in this series. At the first
glance, it may be applied separately.
The rest is looking fine. For 1-3,
Reviewed-by: Yury Norov <yno...@caviumnetworks.com>
