On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 07:11:42PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > On 07/03/2025 at 02:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:08:15AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > >> 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? > > > > I believe it should be written in asm. > > I am not confident enough in my assembly skills to submit asm patches to > the kernel. So, I would rather take a pass on that one. > > Regardless, if somebody decides to unify both without much thinking as > you said, I am fully confident that the patch will get Nack-ed right As I said above "would be good", if you think it's not feasible by you, perhaps a comment (FIXME: ?) in the Kunit test cases that we lack of / need an asm test as well. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
