One of bitmap_cut() tests passed it with:
nbits = BITS_PER_LONG;
first = BITS_PER_LONG;
cut = BITS_PER_LONG;
This test is useless because the range to cut is not inside the
bitmap. This should normally raise an error, but bitmap_cut() is
void and returns nothing.
To check if the test is passed, it just tests that the memory is
not touched by bitmap_cut(), which is probably not correct, because
if a function is passed with wrong parameters, it's too optimistic
to expect a correct, or even sane behavior.
Now that we have bitmap_check_params(), there's a tool to detect such
things in real code, and we can drop the test.
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/test_bitmap.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
index 8bd279a7633f..c1ea449aae2d 100644
--- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
+++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
@@ -707,10 +707,6 @@ static struct test_bitmap_cut test_cut[] = {
{ 15, 16, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0000a5a5UL, }, },
{ 16, 15, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0001a5a5UL, }, },
- { BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG,
- { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, },
- { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, },
- },
{ 1, BITS_PER_LONG - 1, BITS_PER_LONG,
{ 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, },
{ 0x00000001UL, 0x00000001UL, },
--
2.34.1
