On 06/03/2025 at 22:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:58PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Add some additional tests in lib/test_bits.c to cover the expected
>> results of the fixed type BIT_U*() macros.
>
> Still would be good to have a small assembly test case for GENMASK*() as they
> went split and it will be a good regression test in case somebody decides to
> unify both without much thinking..
Let me confirm that I correctly understood your ask. Would something
like this meet your expectations?
diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
index 72984fae7b81..869b291587e6 100644
--- a/lib/test_bits.c
+++ b/lib/test_bits.c
@@ -136,6 +136,29 @@ static void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit
*test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(127, 0));
}
+#undef __LINUX_BITS_H
+#undef GENMASK
+#undef GENMASK_ULL
+#define __ASSEMBLY__
+#include <linux/bits.h>
+static void asm_genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, GENMASK(1, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, GENMASK(2, 1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, GENMASK(31, 0));
+}
+
+static void asm_genmask_ull_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ull, GENMASK_ULL(0, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ull, GENMASK_ULL(1, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x000000ffffe00000ull, GENMASK_ULL(39, 21));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
+}
+#undef __ASSEMBLY__
+#undef GENMASK
+#undef GENMASK_ULL
static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_test),
@@ -144,6 +167,8 @@ static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_u128_test),
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_input_check_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(asm_genmask_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(asm_genmask_ull_test),
{}
};
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
