Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:43:07 -0800 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] lib/test_bitmap: Correct test data offsets for 32-bit |
| |
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:26:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:24:37AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:46:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On 32-bit platform the size of long is only 32 bits which makes wrong offset > > > in the array of 64 bit size. > > > > > > Calculate offset based on BITS_PER_LONG. > > > > > > Fixes: 30544ed5de43 ("lib/bitmap: introduce bitmap_replace() helper") > > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > > unsigned int nbits = 64; > > > + unsigned int step = DIV_ROUND_UP(nbits, BITS_PER_LONG); > > > > Step is already defined in this file: > > #define step (sizeof(u64) / sizeof(unsigned long)) > > ...and later undefined. > > > to avoid the same problem in other test cases. Introducing another variant of > > it looks messy. > > I don't see any problem.
The problem is that you reimplement the functionality instead of reuse.
> > > DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024); > > > > > > bitmap_zero(bmap, 1024); > > > - bitmap_replace(bmap, &exp2[0], &exp2[1], exp2_to_exp3_mask, nbits); > > > + bitmap_replace(bmap, &exp2[0 * step], &exp2[1 * step], exp2_to_exp3_mask, nbits); > > > expect_eq_bitmap(bmap, exp3_0_1, nbits); > > > > If nbits is always 64, why don't you pass 64 directly? > > We may use any setting. For now it's 64, but nothing prevents us to extend to, > let's say, 75. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko >
| |