On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 03:42:33PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the review and feedback. I apologize about my previous
patch, particularly CC'ing the linux-usb list unnecessarily and the
spelling errors.
I'll address your suggestions in a subsequent revision of this patch.
> I don't know why you CC'ed linux-usb for this patch. But as long as you
> did...
This was mas my mistake, I must've pulled it from my bash history of a
previous patch I created with git format-patch. I will be more thorough
and ensure I use b4 in new patches to help generate the recipients list.
>> + { 3, 1, "non-perfect square: sqaure root of 3" },
> s/sqau/squa/
>> + { 5, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 5" },
> s/square root/square root/
I failed to run checkpatch with --strict --codespell, it could've
easily caught this. I'll update my post-commit hook to prevent missing
this step in the future.
I'll update these accoridngly:
{ 3, 1, "non-perfect square: square root of 3" },
...
{ 5, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 5" },
> For the higher numbers (16, 81, etc.), you should test N-1 (and maybe
> also N+1) as well as N.
Good point, I'm assuming this will help ensure the test suite validates
int_sqrt() behavior around the boundaries of a perfect square.
I'll add the following test cases as per your suggestion:
{ 15, 3, "non-perfect square: square root of 15 (N-1 from 16)" },
{ 16, 4, "perfect square: square root of 16" },
{ 17, 4, "non-perfect square: square root of 17 (N+1 from 16)" },
{ 80, 8, "non-perfect square: square root of 80 (N-1 from 81)" },
{ 81, 9, "perfect square: square root of 81" },
{ 82, 9, "non-perfect square: square root of 82 (N+1 from 81)" },
{ 255, 15, "non-perfect square: square root of 255 (N-1 from 256)" },
{ 256, 16, "perfect square: square root of 256" },
{ 257, 16, "non-perfect square: square root of 257 (N+1 from 256)" },
Thank you for your time Alan, and again I apologize to you and the
linux-usb mailing list.
Best,
Felipe
