On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:56PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
The definitions of GENMASK() and GENMASK_ULL() do not depend any more
on __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL(). Duplicate the existing unit tests
so that __GENMASK{,ULL}() is still covered.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/test_bits.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
index c7b38d91e1f16d42b7ca92e62fbd6c19b37e76a0..dc93ded9fdb201e0d44b3c1cd71e233fd62258a5 100644
--- a/lib/test_bits.c
+++ b/lib/test_bits.c
@@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
#include <linux/bits.h>
+static void __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));
why are you dropping the ones for TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES ?
+}
+
+static void __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));
ditto
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, __GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
+}
+
static void genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
@@ -93,6 +109,8 @@ static void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit *test)
static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_ull_test),
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_test),
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
KUNIT_CASE(genmask_u128_test),
--
2.45.3
