On 08/03/2025 at 01:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. Ack. I will add a FIXME message in v6. Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
