| Message ID | 20220718192844.1805158-7-yury.norov@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce DEBUG_BITMAP config option and bitmap_check_params() | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:28:34PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > One of bitmap_cut() tests passed it with: > nbits = BITS_PER_LONG; > first = BITS_PER_LONG; > cut = BITS_PER_LONG; > > This test is useless because the range to cut is not inside the > bitmap. This should normally raise an error, but bitmap_cut() is > void and returns nothing. > > To check if the test is passed, it just tests that the memory is > not touched by bitmap_cut(), which is probably not correct, because > if a function is passed with wrong parameters, it's too optimistic > to expect a correct, or even sane behavior. > > Now that we have bitmap_check_params(), there's a tool to detect such > things in real code, and we can drop the test. There are no "useless" tests. Same comments as per a couple of previous patches.
diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c index 8bd279a7633f..c1ea449aae2d 100644 --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c @@ -707,10 +707,6 @@ static struct test_bitmap_cut test_cut[] = { { 15, 16, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0000a5a5UL, }, }, { 16, 15, 32, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x0001a5a5UL, }, }, - { BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_LONG, - { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, - { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, - }, { 1, BITS_PER_LONG - 1, BITS_PER_LONG, { 0xa5a5a5a5UL, 0xa5a5a5a5UL, }, { 0x00000001UL, 0x00000001UL, },
One of bitmap_cut() tests passed it with: nbits = BITS_PER_LONG; first = BITS_PER_LONG; cut = BITS_PER_LONG; This test is useless because the range to cut is not inside the bitmap. This should normally raise an error, but bitmap_cut() is void and returns nothing. To check if the test is passed, it just tests that the memory is not touched by bitmap_cut(), which is probably not correct, because if a function is passed with wrong parameters, it's too optimistic to expect a correct, or even sane behavior. Now that we have bitmap_check_params(), there's a tool to detect such things in real code, and we can drop the test. Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> --- lib/test_bitmap.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)