* [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa
@ 2023-06-19 23:22 edagarmarjara
2023-06-24 20:08 ` Maira Canal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: edagarmarjara @ 2023-06-19 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: dri-devel, Maíra Canal, Arthur Grillo,
Javier Martinez Canillas, edagarmarjara
---
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
index e9809ea32696..d03e1d9b208d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
}
+
static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped(struct kunit *test)
{
struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
@@ -196,11 +197,40 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
}
+static void drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
+{
+
+ const void* gem_params(const void *prev, char *desc);
+ struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
+ bool visible;
+
+ /*
+ * 'clip.x2 - dst.x1 >= dst width' could result a negative
+ * src rectangle width which is no longer expected by the
+ * code as it's using unsigned types. This could lead to
+ * the clipped source rectangle appering visible when it
+ * should have been fully clipped. Make sure both rectangles
+ * end up invisible.
+ * en esta parte cambio los valores y hago por aun mas afuera para el clip scaled
+ * para poder saber si al exagerar mas aun la escala sigue funcionando
+ */
+ drm_rect_init(&src, 2, 2, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
+ drm_rect_init(&dst, 2, 2, 4, 4);
+ drm_rect_init(&clip, 6, 6, 3, 3);
+
+ visible = drm_rect_clip_scaled(&src, &dst, &clip);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, visible, "Destination should not be visible\n");
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
+}
+
+
static struct kunit_case drm_rect_tests[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero),
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped),
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_clipped),
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned),
+ KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned), //Test entrega 2
{ }
};
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa
2023-06-19 23:22 [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa edagarmarjara
@ 2023-06-24 20:08 ` Maira Canal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Maira Canal @ 2023-06-24 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edagarmarjara, linux-kernel
Cc: dri-devel, Arthur Grillo, Javier Martinez Canillas
Hi edagarmarjara,
First, you need to include a commit message to the patch. Check [1] to
see a basic guide to submit patches.
On 6/19/23 20:22, edagarmarjara wrote:
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> index e9809ea32696..d03e1d9b208d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
> }
>
> +
This line is not needed. You can run checkpatch.sh to catch common style
mistakes.
> static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
> @@ -196,11 +197,40 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
> }
>
> +static void drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +
> + const void* gem_params(const void *prev, char *desc);
Hum... I guess you don't need this function signature here.
> + struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
> + bool visible;
> +
> + /*
> + * 'clip.x2 - dst.x1 >= dst width' could result a negative
> + * src rectangle width which is no longer expected by the
> + * code as it's using unsigned types. This could lead to
> + * the clipped source rectangle appering visible when it
> + * should have been fully clipped. Make sure both rectangles
> + * end up invisible.
> + * en esta parte cambio los valores y hago por aun mas afuera para el clip scaled
> + * para poder saber si al exagerar mas aun la escala sigue funcionando
I believe you can try to explain the test in smaller comments. Sometimes
the tests explain by itself. Also, avoid to use Spanish in comments.
> + */
> + drm_rect_init(&src, 2, 2, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
> + drm_rect_init(&dst, 2, 2, 4, 4);
> + drm_rect_init(&clip, 6, 6, 3, 3);
> +
> + visible = drm_rect_clip_scaled(&src, &dst, &clip);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, visible, "Destination should not be visible\n");
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
I believe you could introduce more test cases for this test instead of
only one.
> +}
> +
> +
> static struct kunit_case drm_rect_tests[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_clipped),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned),
> + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned), //Test entrega 2
I believe you could remove the comment here.
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Best Regards,
- Maíra
> { }
> };
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa
@ 2023-06-24 20:08 ` Maira Canal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Maira Canal @ 2023-06-24 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edagarmarjara, linux-kernel
Cc: Arthur Grillo, dri-devel, Javier Martinez Canillas
Hi edagarmarjara,
First, you need to include a commit message to the patch. Check [1] to
see a basic guide to submit patches.
On 6/19/23 20:22, edagarmarjara wrote:
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> index e9809ea32696..d03e1d9b208d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
> }
>
> +
This line is not needed. You can run checkpatch.sh to catch common style
mistakes.
> static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
> @@ -196,11 +197,40 @@ static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
> }
>
> +static void drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +
> + const void* gem_params(const void *prev, char *desc);
Hum... I guess you don't need this function signature here.
> + struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
> + bool visible;
> +
> + /*
> + * 'clip.x2 - dst.x1 >= dst width' could result a negative
> + * src rectangle width which is no longer expected by the
> + * code as it's using unsigned types. This could lead to
> + * the clipped source rectangle appering visible when it
> + * should have been fully clipped. Make sure both rectangles
> + * end up invisible.
> + * en esta parte cambio los valores y hago por aun mas afuera para el clip scaled
> + * para poder saber si al exagerar mas aun la escala sigue funcionando
I believe you can try to explain the test in smaller comments. Sometimes
the tests explain by itself. Also, avoid to use Spanish in comments.
> + */
> + drm_rect_init(&src, 2, 2, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
> + drm_rect_init(&dst, 2, 2, 4, 4);
> + drm_rect_init(&clip, 6, 6, 3, 3);
> +
> + visible = drm_rect_clip_scaled(&src, &dst, &clip);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, visible, "Destination should not be visible\n");
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not be visible\n");
I believe you could introduce more test cases for this test instead of
only one.
> +}
> +
> +
> static struct kunit_case drm_rect_tests[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_clipped),
> KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned),
> + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_over_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned), //Test entrega 2
I believe you could remove the comment here.
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Best Regards,
- Maíra
> { }
> };
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-06-24 20:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-06-19 23:22 [PATCH] Tercera entrega completa edagarmarjara
2023-06-24 20:08 ` Maira Canal
2023-06-24 20:08 ` Maira Canal
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.