Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] iio: test: Add test for IIO_VAL_INT_64.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02.11.21 10:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 9:33 AM Andriy Tryshnivskyy
<andriy.tryshnivskyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now it's good with format, but you have missed the commit message.

Actually commit massage contains a header only (no body message), but I can add body message too.
Thanks!


Signed-off-by: Andriy Tryshnivskyy <andriy.tryshnivskyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...

+static void iio_test_iio_format_value_integer_64(struct kunit *test)
+{
+       char *buf = kunit_kmalloc(test, PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
Shouldn't this be checked against NULL?

Good question. Truly speaking I've made new test similar to other. And no other tests has a check for NULL.

+       s64 value;
+       int values[2];
+       int ret;
Reversed xmas tree ordering?

I will correct it. Thanks!

+       value = 24;
+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
ARRAY_SIZE()?

Will use ARRAY_SIZE(). Thanks!

+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "24\n");
+
+       value = -24;
+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-24\n");
+
+       value = 0;
+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "0\n");
+
+       value = 4294967295;
Is this UINT_MAX?

Yes. It's UINT_MAX. I will use a constant. Thanks!

+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "4294967295\n");
+       value = -4294967295;
Is this -UINT_MAX?

Yes. It's -UINT_MAX. I will use a constant. Thanks!

+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-4294967295\n");
+
+       value = LLONG_MAX;
+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "9223372036854775807\n");
+
+       value = LLONG_MIN;
+       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
+       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
+       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
+       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-9223372036854775808\n");
+}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Thank you for review!


Regards,
Andriy.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [X.org]

  Powered by Linux