From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760830AbbKTQpR (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:45:17 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:52854 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760758AbbKTQpP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:45:15 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,323,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="825349658" Message-ID: <1448037839.31665.172.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/7] test_hexdump: test all possible group sizes for overflow From: Andy Shevchenko To: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:43:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h9kis3co.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk> References: <1447259718-19647-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1447259718-19647-7-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <87h9kis3co.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 11:14 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11 2015, Andy Shevchenko om> wrote: > > > Currently only one combination is tested for overflow, i.e. rowsize > > = 16, > > groupsize = 1, len = 1.  Do various test to go all possible > > branches. [] > > + do { > > + int gs = 1 << i; > > + size_t len = get_random_int() % 16 + gs; > > + > > + test_hexdump_overflow(buflen, rounddown(len, gs), > > 16, gs, ascii); > > + } while (i++ < 3); > > +} > > > aren't you missing a > >   test_hexdump_overflow(buflen, rounddown(len, gs), 32, gs, ascii); > > here to also exercise the rowsize==32 code? I could add that as well, though it seems minor since the idea is to go for all branches, which 16 covers anyway. >  static int __init test_hexdump_init(void) > >  { > >   unsigned int i; > > @@ -186,10 +199,10 @@ static int __init test_hexdump_init(void) > >   test_hexdump_set(rowsize, true); > >   > >   for (i = 0; i <= TEST_HEXDUMP_BUF_SIZE; i++) > > - test_hexdump_overflow(i, false); > > + test_hexdump_overflow_set(i, false); > >   > >   for (i = 0; i <= TEST_HEXDUMP_BUF_SIZE; i++) > > - test_hexdump_overflow(i, true); > > + test_hexdump_overflow_set(i, true); > > It seems neater to do one loop: > > for (i = 0; i <= TEST_HEXDUMP_BUF_SIZE; i++) { >   test_hexdump_overflow_set(i, false); >   test_hexdump_overflow_set(i, true); > } I would like to keep them separately, though I'm also okay to do it in one loop. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy