[v3,2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value()

  Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
longs.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>

---
This patch was previously called
"lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"

v3:
 - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value()
 - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(),
   as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB.
---
 lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
  

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> longs.

I always in favour of a new test case!
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
> 
> ---
> This patch was previously called
> "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"

Hint, you may always just link to lore mail archive for easier access and
handling. Also with `b4` at hand the lore link can be used to resurrect
a discussion (in case it's needed).

> v3:
>  - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value()
>  - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(),
>    as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB.
> ---
>  lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> +static bool __init
> +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> +		 const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x)
> +{
> +	if (exp_ulong != x) {
> +		pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n",
> +			srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}
>  
>  static bool __init
>  __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
>  	})
>  
>  #define expect_eq_uint(...)		__expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define expect_eq_ulong(...)		__expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_bitmap(...)		__expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_pbl(...)		__expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_u32_array(...)	__expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void)
>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25));
>  }
>  
> +static void __init test_set_get_value(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
> +	unsigned long val;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) {
> +		bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
> +		bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5);
> +		val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5);
> +		expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val);
> +		bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b101UL, i + 5, 3);
> +		val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i + 5, 3);
> +		expect_eq_ulong(0b101UL, val);
> +		val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 8);
> +		expect_eq_ulong(0b10110101UL, val);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static void __init selftest(void)
>  {
>  	test_zero_clear();
> @@ -1249,6 +1280,8 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
>  	test_for_each_clear_bitrange_from();
>  	test_for_each_set_clump8();
>  	test_for_each_set_bit_wrap();
> +
> +	test_set_get_value();
>  }
>  
>  KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_bitmap);
> -- 
> 2.41.0.255.g8b1d071c50-goog
>
  

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> longs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
 
Thanks for the test!

> ---
> This patch was previously called
> "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"
> 
> v3:
>  - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value()
>  - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(),
>    as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB.
> ---
>  lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> +static bool __init
> +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> +		 const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x)
> +{
> +	if (exp_ulong != x) {
> +		pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n",
> +			srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}
>  
>  static bool __init
>  __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
>  	})
>  
>  #define expect_eq_uint(...)		__expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define expect_eq_ulong(...)		__expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_bitmap(...)		__expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_pbl(...)		__expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #define expect_eq_u32_array(...)	__expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void)
>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25));
>  }
>  
> +static void __init test_set_get_value(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);

It's too short. Can you make it long enough to ensure it works as
expected when start is not in the 1st word, and start+nbits is in
the following word.

> +	unsigned long val;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) {
> +		bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
> +		bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5);
> +		val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5);
> +		expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val);

Can you also check that the rest of bitmap is untouched?
Something like:

	DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, ...);
	DECLARE_BITMAP(orig, ...);

        memset(orig, 0x5a, ...);
        memset(bitmap, 0x5a, ...);

        for (j = start; j < start + nbits; j++)
                if (val & BIT(j - start))
                        __set_bit(j, orig);
                else
                        __clear_bit(j, orig);

        bitmap_set_value(bitmap, val, start, nbits);
        expect_eq_bitmap(orig, bitmap, ...);

I like this kind of testing because it gives people a better
understanding of what happens behind all that optimization tricks.

Thanks,
Yury
  

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:11:50AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:

...

>                 if (val & BIT(j - start))
>                         __set_bit(j, orig);
>                 else
>                         __clear_bit(j, orig);

JFYI: __asign_bit() can be used here.
  

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 6:11 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> > of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> > longs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
>
> Thanks for the test!
>
> > ---
> > This patch was previously called
> > "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"
> >
> > v3:
> >  - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value()
> >  - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(),
> >    as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB.
> > ---
> >  lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> >       return true;
> >  }
> >
> > +static bool __init
> > +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> > +              const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x)
> > +{
> > +     if (exp_ulong != x) {
> > +             pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n",
> > +                     srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x);
> > +             return false;
> > +     }
> > +     return true;
> > +}
> >
> >  static bool __init
> >  __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> > @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> >       })
> >
> >  #define expect_eq_uint(...)          __expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > +#define expect_eq_ulong(...)         __expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >  #define expect_eq_bitmap(...)                __expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >  #define expect_eq_pbl(...)           __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >  #define expect_eq_u32_array(...)     __expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void)
> >       BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25));
> >  }
> >
> > +static void __init test_set_get_value(void)
> > +{
> > +     DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
>
> It's too short. Can you make it long enough to ensure it works as
> expected when start is not in the 1st word, and start+nbits is in
> the following word.
>
> > +     unsigned long val;
> > +     int i;
> > +
> > +     for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) {
> > +             bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2);
> > +             bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5);
> > +             val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5);
> > +             expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val);
>
> Can you also check that the rest of bitmap is untouched?
> Something like:
>
>         DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, ...);
>         DECLARE_BITMAP(orig, ...);
>
>         memset(orig, 0x5a, ...);
>         memset(bitmap, 0x5a, ...);
>
>         for (j = start; j < start + nbits; j++)
>                 if (val & BIT(j - start))
>                         __set_bit(j, orig);
>                 else
>                         __clear_bit(j, orig);
>
>         bitmap_set_value(bitmap, val, start, nbits);
>         expect_eq_bitmap(orig, bitmap, ...);
>
> I like this kind of testing because it gives people a better
> understanding of what happens behind all that optimization tricks.

Will do. In fact the difference between GENMASK(n, 0) and GENMASK(n-1,
0) discussed in the other patch requires exactly this kind of testing.
  

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> > of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> > longs.
>
> I always in favour of a new test case!
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
> >
> > ---
> > This patch was previously called
> > "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned"
>
> Hint, you may always just link to lore mail archive for easier access and
> handling. Also with `b4` at hand the lore link can be used to resurrect
> a discussion (in case it's needed).

Will add the link in v4
(guess you didn't want it in the final patch description, correct?)