Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-202602-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <9710a691-1c94-4f0b-b320-9fc78ee15ae8@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:56:25 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: arm64: Fix redundancy of a testcase
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
 will@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
 Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com
References: <20240605115448.640717-1-dev.jain@arm.com>
 <a518770a-371e-4333-b85d-6a5808a7ac09@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <a518770a-371e-4333-b85d-6a5808a7ac09@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 6/5/24 17:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:24:48PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> Currently, we are writing the same value as we read, into the TLS
>> register; hence, we cannot confirm updation of the register, making the
>> testcase "verify_tpidr_one" redundant. Fix this; while at it, do a style
>> change.
> Please don't combine unrelated changes into a single patch.


I shall take care of that in the future.

>
>>   	/* ...write a new value.. */
>>   	write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t);
>> -	write_val[0] = read_val[0]++;
>> +	write_val[0] = read_val[0] + 1;
>>   	ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, child, NT_ARM_TLS, &write_iov);
>>   	ksft_test_result(ret == 0, "write_tpidr_one\n");
> This is a good fix:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>


Thanks!

>
>> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void test_tpidr(pid_t child)
>>   		/* Writing only TPIDR... */
>>   		write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t);
>>   		memcpy(write_val, read_val, sizeof(read_val));
>> -		write_val[0] += 1;
>> +		++write_val[0];
> I'm less convinced that this is a good style change.


Well, what I have seen usually is, when we add 1, we

use prefix/postfix increment, and do a "+=" when it

is not 1. But, I get your point: such style may confuse

people into thinking that we are doing an index/pointer

increment, since that is the usual usecase for this.