1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH v5 0/7] bits: Fixed-type GENMASK()/BIT()
  4. View patch

[PATCH v5 5/7] test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL()

Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay posted 7 patches 11 months, 1 week ago
[PATCH v5 5/7] test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL()
Posted by Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay 11 months, 1 week ago 
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>

The definitions of GENMASK() and GENMASK_ULL() do not depend any more
on __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL(). Duplicate the existing unit tests
so that __GENMASK{,ULL}() is still covered.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
---
 lib/test_bits.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
index c7b38d91e1f16d42b7ca92e62fbd6c19b37e76a0..dc93ded9fdb201e0d44b3c1cd71e233fd62258a5 100644
--- a/lib/test_bits.c
+++ b/lib/test_bits.c
@@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
 #include <linux/bits.h>
 
 
+static void __genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, __GENMASK(0, 0));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, __GENMASK(1, 0));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, __GENMASK(2, 1));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, __GENMASK(31, 0));
+}
+
+static void __genmask_ull_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ull, __GENMASK_ULL(0, 0));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ull, __GENMASK_ULL(1, 0));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x000000ffffe00000ull, __GENMASK_ULL(39, 21));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, __GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
+}
+
 static void genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
@@ -93,6 +109,8 @@ static void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit *test)
 
 
 static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
+	KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_test),
+	KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_ull_test),
 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_test),
 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_u128_test),

-- 
2.45.3
Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL()
Posted by Lucas De Marchi 11 months ago 
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:56PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>
>The definitions of GENMASK() and GENMASK_ULL() do not depend any more
>on __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL(). Duplicate the existing unit tests
>so that __GENMASK{,ULL}() is still covered.
>
>Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>---
> lib/test_bits.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
>index c7b38d91e1f16d42b7ca92e62fbd6c19b37e76a0..dc93ded9fdb201e0d44b3c1cd71e233fd62258a5 100644
>--- a/lib/test_bits.c
>+++ b/lib/test_bits.c
>@@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
> #include <linux/bits.h>
>
>
>+static void __genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
>+{
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, __GENMASK(0, 0));
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, __GENMASK(1, 0));
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, __GENMASK(2, 1));
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, __GENMASK(31, 0));

why are you dropping the ones for TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES ?

>+}
>+
>+static void __genmask_ull_test(struct kunit *test)
>+{
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ull, __GENMASK_ULL(0, 0));
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ull, __GENMASK_ULL(1, 0));
>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x000000ffffe00000ull, __GENMASK_ULL(39, 21));

ditto

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, __GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
>+}
>+
> static void genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
>@@ -93,6 +109,8 @@ static void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit *test)
>
>
> static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
>+	KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_test),
>+	KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_ull_test),
> 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_test),
> 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
> 	KUNIT_CASE(genmask_u128_test),
>
>-- 
>2.45.3
>
>
Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL()
Posted by Vincent Mailhol 11 months ago 
On 13/03/2025 at 13:13, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:56PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay
> wrote:
>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>>
>> The definitions of GENMASK() and GENMASK_ULL() do not depend any more
>> on __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL(). Duplicate the existing unit tests
>> so that __GENMASK{,ULL}() is still covered.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>> ---
>> lib/test_bits.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
>> index
>> c7b38d91e1f16d42b7ca92e62fbd6c19b37e76a0..dc93ded9fdb201e0d44b3c1cd71e233fd62258a5 100644
>> --- a/lib/test_bits.c
>> +++ b/lib/test_bits.c
>> @@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
>> #include <linux/bits.h>
>>
>>
>> +static void __genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, __GENMASK(0, 0));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, __GENMASK(1, 0));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, __GENMASK(2, 1));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, __GENMASK(31, 0));
> 
> why are you dropping the ones for TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES ?

Because the __GENMASK() and the __GENMASK_ULL() do not use
GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(), it is not possible to have those
TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES negative test cases here.

I will add one sentence to the commit message to explain this.

>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __genmask_ull_test(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ull, __GENMASK_ULL(0, 0));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ull, __GENMASK_ULL(1, 0));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x000000ffffe00000ull, __GENMASK_ULL(39, 21));
> 
> ditto
> 
> thanks
> Lucas De Marchi
> 
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, __GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
>> +}
>> +
>> static void genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>>     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
>> @@ -93,6 +109,8 @@ static void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit
>> *test)
>>
>>
>> static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
>> +    KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_test),
>> +    KUNIT_CASE(__genmask_ull_test),
>>     KUNIT_CASE(genmask_test),
>>     KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
>>     KUNIT_CASE(genmask_u128_test),


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL()
Posted by Lucas De Marchi 11 months ago 
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 03:00:34PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>On 13/03/2025 at 13:13, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:56PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay
>> wrote:
>>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>>>
>>> The definitions of GENMASK() and GENMASK_ULL() do not depend any more
>>> on __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL(). Duplicate the existing unit tests
>>> so that __GENMASK{,ULL}() is still covered.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>>> ---
>>> lib/test_bits.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
>>> index
>>> c7b38d91e1f16d42b7ca92e62fbd6c19b37e76a0..dc93ded9fdb201e0d44b3c1cd71e233fd62258a5 100644
>>> --- a/lib/test_bits.c
>>> +++ b/lib/test_bits.c
>>> @@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
>>> #include <linux/bits.h>
>>>
>>>
>>> +static void __genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
>>> +{
>>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, __GENMASK(0, 0));
>>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, __GENMASK(1, 0));
>>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, __GENMASK(2, 1));
>>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, __GENMASK(31, 0));
>>
>> why are you dropping the ones for TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES ?
>
>Because the __GENMASK() and the __GENMASK_ULL() do not use
>GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(), it is not possible to have those
>TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES negative test cases here.
>
>I will add one sentence to the commit message to explain this.

ok, makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.