Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:08:02 -0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa | From | Maira Canal <> |
| |
Hi edagarmarjara,
First, you need to include a commit message to the patch. Check [1] to see a basic guide to submit patches.
On 6/19/23 20:22, edagarmarjara wrote: > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > index e9809ea32696..d03e1d9b208d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero(struct kunit *test) > KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n"); > } > > +
This line is not needed. You can run checkpatch.sh to catch common style mistakes.
> static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped(struct kunit *test) > { > struct drm_rect src, dst, clip; > @@ -196,11 +197,40 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test) > KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n"); > } > > +static void drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + > + const void* gem_params(const void *prev, char *desc);
Hum... I guess you don't need this function signature here.
> + struct drm_rect src, dst, clip; > + bool visible; > + > + /* > + * 'clip.x2 - dst.x1 >= dst width' could result a negative > + * src rectangle width which is no longer expected by the > + * code as it's using unsigned types. This could lead to > + * the clipped source rectangle appering visible when it > + * should have been fully clipped. Make sure both rectangles > + * end up invisible. > + * en esta parte cambio los valores y hago por aun mas afuera para el clip scaled > + * para poder saber si al exagerar mas aun la escala sigue funcionando
I believe you can try to explain the test in smaller comments. Sometimes the tests explain by itself. Also, avoid to use Spanish in comments.
> + */ > + drm_rect_init(&src, 2, 2, INT_MAX, INT_MAX); > + drm_rect_init(&dst, 2, 2, 4, 4); > + drm_rect_init(&clip, 6, 6, 3, 3); > + > + visible = drm_rect_clip_scaled(&src, &dst, &clip); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, visible, "Destination should not be visible\n"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
I believe you could introduce more test cases for this test instead of only one.
> +} > + > + > static struct kunit_case drm_rect_tests[] = { > KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero), > KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped), > KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_clipped), > KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned), > + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned), //Test entrega 2
I believe you could remove the comment here.
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Best Regards, - Maíra
> { } > }; >
| |