Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230720173956.3674987-1-glider@google.com> <20230720173956.3674987-3-glider@google.com>
 <ZLyQk5Wmcx7Cf84W@yury-ThinkPad> <CAG_fn=WQORJConbBPzaNF2Nuxaf9Jmhy1Vgj=nk7gj902SQxOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQ2WboApqYyEkjjG@yury-ThinkPad>
In-Reply-To: <ZQ2WboApqYyEkjjG@yury-ThinkPad>
From:   Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:33:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=UU12KcRLB6-s423MX4YM563URz=q7i570=VnH1C-1m7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value()
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, pcc@google.com,
        andreyknvl@gmail.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eugenis@google.com,
        syednwaris@gmail.com, william.gray@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 3:30=E2=80=AFPM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 09:57:32AM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > > +     unsigned long val, bit;
> > > > +     int i;
> > > > +
> > > > +     /* Setting/getting zero bytes should not crash the kernel. */
> > > > +     bitmap_write(NULL, 0, 0, zero_bits);
> > > > +     val =3D bitmap_read(NULL, 0, zero_bits);
> > > > +     expect_eq_ulong(0, val);
> > >
> > > No, val is undefined.
> >
> > Why? bitmap_read(..., ..., 0) always returns 0.
>
> Because it's unexpected and most likely wrong to pass 0 bits. We
> guarantee that bitmap_read() will return immediately, and will not
> touch the memory. But we don't guarantee that we return any specific
> value.

Fair enough, I'll remove the expect_eq_ulong() from the test in v6 and
will also add the requirement for nbits to be nonzero to the doc
comments for bitmap_read() and bitmap_write().

> It's not a hot path, at least now, and we can spend few extra cycles
> to clear output register and return 0, but user should not rely on it
> in any way, especially in a test that is intended to show an example
> of using the new API.

Ok, for now I'll keep the "return 0" part.

> Consider a less relaxed environment, where we really have to count
> cycles. In such environment, we'd return a content of the 1st input
> argument, just because it's already in R0, and compiled doesn't have
> to:
>
>     mov r0, #0
>     ret