Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] iio: test: Add test for IIO_VAL_INT_64.

From: Andriy Tryshnivskyy <andriy.tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] iio: test: Add test for IIO_VAL_INT_64.
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:45:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d909cca-46a9-3f40-5d4d-97ef2fbe33e9@opensynergy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfafpEBccivDRC2AVVJbZL2Kdq2KeR0yf_nwTtDTxvDkg@mail.gmail.com>

On 02.11.21 10:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> 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.

Actually commit massage contains a header only (no body message), but I can add body message too.
Thanks!

>
>> 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?

Good question. Truly speaking I've made new test similar to other. And no other tests has a check for NULL.

>> +       s64 value;
>> +       int values[2];
>> +       int ret;
> Reversed xmas tree ordering?

I will correct it. Thanks!

>> +       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()?

Will use ARRAY_SIZE(). Thanks!

>> +       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?

Yes. It's UINT_MAX. I will use a constant. Thanks!

>> +       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?

Yes. It's -UINT_MAX. I will use a constant. Thanks!

>> +       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
>
Thank you for review!

Regards,
Andriy.