Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:51:14 +0200
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib: Add test for bitmap_cut()
Message-ID: <20200608135114.44ae7962@elisabeth>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vfvx6wKJUKfgDjyEcPthT9BicoZqfZmaS8eKMFwgvVphg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1591606281.git.sbrivio@redhat.com>
        <3e3ab7a4756df2ecf8fb012f16c375d4cd714552.1591606281.git.sbrivio@redhat.com>
        <20200608101214.GE2428291@smile.fi.intel.com>
        <20200608122702.034c8c80@redhat.com>
        <CAHp75Vfvx6wKJUKfgDjyEcPthT9BicoZqfZmaS8eKMFwgvVphg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Red Hat
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:31:02 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:29 PM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:12:14 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:13:29AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:  
> > > > Based on an original patch by Yury Norov: introduce a test for
> > > > bitmap_cut() that also makes sure functionality is as described for
> > > > partially overlapping src and dst.  
> > >  
> > > > Co-authored-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>  
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by (and it requires Yury's SoB as well).  
> >
> > Oops, sorry, I didn't remember this part from submitting-patches.rst
> > correctly. Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> > Yury, let me know if I should re-post with both Co-authored-by: and  
> 
> Co-developed-by: :-)

Grrr. That! :)

> > Signed-off-by: you -- otherwise I'll repost without both.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +           if (!bitmap_equal(out, t->expected, t->nbits)) {
> > > > +                   pr_err("bitmap_cut failed: expected %*pb, got %*pb\n",
> > > > +                          t->nbits, t->expected, t->nbits, out);
> > > > +           }  
> > >
> > > Perhaps
> > >
> > >       if (bitmap_equal(...))
> > >               continue;
> > >
> > >       ...
> > >
> > > ?  
> >
> > That's five lines instead of four (I can't get pr_err() on one line
> > anyway) and it looks less straightforward: "if it doesn't match we have
> > an error" vs. "if it matches go to next case. We have an error". Any
> > specific reason I'm missing?  
> 
> Actually, please use one of suitable expect_eq_*() macro or add your
> own. Because above has an inconsistent format with the rest.

Whoops, I see now. Yes, expect_eq_bitmap() will do, I'll change this in
v2.

-- 
Stefano