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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHp75Vd7Wwka37w-6QTXT9vv13bPiygKryBhQTnyvtTpCNU9qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211102073300.13376-1-andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211102073300.13376-1-andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 10:11:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfafpEBccivDRC2AVVJbZL2Kdq2KeR0yf_nwTtDTxvDkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] iio: test: Add test for IIO_VAL_INT_64.
To:     Andriy Tryshnivskyy <andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com>
Cc:     Vasyl.Vavrychuk@opensynergy.com, jbhayana@google.com,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 9:33 AM Andriy Tryshnivskyy
<andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com> wrote:
>

Now it's good with format, but you have missed the commit message.

> Signed-off-by: Andriy Tryshnivskyy <andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com>

...

> +static void iio_test_iio_format_value_integer_64(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       char *buf = kunit_kmalloc(test, PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);

Shouldn't this be checked against NULL?

> +       s64 value;
> +       int values[2];
> +       int ret;

Reversed xmas tree ordering?

> +       value = 24;
> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);

> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);

ARRAY_SIZE()?

> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "24\n");
> +
> +       value = -24;
> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-24\n");
> +
> +       value = 0;
> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "0\n");
> +
> +       value = 4294967295;

Is this UINT_MAX?

> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "4294967295\n");

> +       value = -4294967295;

Is this -UINT_MAX?

> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-4294967295\n");
> +
> +       value = LLONG_MAX;
> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "9223372036854775807\n");
> +
> +       value = LLONG_MIN;
> +       values[0] = lower_32_bits(value);
> +       values[1] = upper_32_bits(value);
> +       ret = iio_format_value(buf, IIO_VAL_INT_64, 2, values);
> +       IIO_TEST_FORMAT_EXPECT_EQ(test, buf, ret, "-9223372036854775808\n");
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko