On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:31:02 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:29 PM Stefano Brivio <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:12:14 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:13:29AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > > Based on an original patch by Yury Norov: introduce a test for > > > > bitmap_cut() that also makes sure functionality is as described for > > > > partially overlapping src and dst. > > > > > > > Co-authored-by: Yury Norov <[email protected]> > > > > > > Co-developed-by (and it requires Yury's SoB as well). > > > > Oops, sorry, I didn't remember this part from submitting-patches.rst > > correctly. Thanks for pointing this out. > > > > Yury, let me know if I should re-post with both Co-authored-by: and > > Co-developed-by: :-) Grrr. That! :) > > Signed-off-by: you -- otherwise I'll repost without both. > > ... > > > > > + if (!bitmap_equal(out, t->expected, t->nbits)) { > > > > + pr_err("bitmap_cut failed: expected %*pb, got > > > > %*pb\n", > > > > + t->nbits, t->expected, t->nbits, out); > > > > + } > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > if (bitmap_equal(...)) > > > continue; > > > > > > ... > > > > > > ? > > > > That's five lines instead of four (I can't get pr_err() on one line > > anyway) and it looks less straightforward: "if it doesn't match we have > > an error" vs. "if it matches go to next case. We have an error". Any > > specific reason I'm missing? > > Actually, please use one of suitable expect_eq_*() macro or add your > own. Because above has an inconsistent format with the rest. Whoops, I see now. Yes, expect_eq_bitmap() will do, I'll change this in v2. -- Stefano
