lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa
From
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

> { }
> };
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-06-24 22:09    [W:0.024 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site