Hi, David,
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 1:21 AM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:26 AM Isabella Basso isabellabdoamaral@usp.br wrote:
Split the The test_int_hash function to keep its mainloop separate from arch-specific chunks, which are only compiled as needed. This aims at improving readability.
Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso isabellabdoamaral@usp.br
I like this, but have a note below. It _may_ be worth combining some of these test refactoring patches with the KUnit port patch: definitely a matter of taste rather than something I think is necessary, but I personally think they're related enough they could go together if you wanted.
I'm not really comfortable with such big diffs, to be honest, but I'll keep this in mind!
lib/test_hash.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c index 8bcc645a7294..ed75c768c231 100644 --- a/lib/test_hash.c +++ b/lib/test_hash.c @@ -61,6 +61,45 @@ fill_buf(char *buf, size_t len, u32 seed) } }
+#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 +static bool __init +test_int_hash32(u32 *h0, u32 *h1, u32 *h2)
I'm unsure about this name. Having test_int_hash32() test only __hash_32(), where test_int_hash64() tests hash_64() feels a little bit inconsistent. Maybe this is somewhere we should have the extra underscore like in HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32.
I get that because the architecture-specific hash_32() is removed earlier, there's no need for an extra function to test how that compares against a generic function, so there's no conflict here, but it did confuse me briefly.
I see your point. This actually hadn't occurred to me. Now I'm thinking test_int__hash_32() (and, by extension, test_int_hash_64()) should make for a clearer naming convention.
The other option is, as mentioned in the earlier patch, to keep the architecture-specific hash_32() (and _maybe_ get rid of __hash_32() entirely), in which case this name would be perfect for testing that.
+{
hash_or[1][0] |= *h2 = __hash_32_generic(h0);+#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
if (*h1 != *h2) {pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",*h0, *h1, *h2);return false;}+#endif
return true;+} +#endif
+#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 +static bool __init +test_int_hash64(unsigned long long h64, u32 *h0, u32 *h1, u32 *h2, u32 const *m, int k) +{
*h2 = hash_64_generic(*h64, *k);+#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
if (*h1 != *h2) {pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",*h64, *k, *h1, *h2);return false;}+#else
if (*h2 > *m) {pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",*h64, *k, *h1, *m);return false;}+#endif
return true;+} +#endif
/*
- Test the various integer hash functions. h64 (or its low-order bits)
- is the integer to hash. hash_or accumulates the OR of the hash values,
@@ -74,19 +113,17 @@ static bool __init test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64) { int k;
u32 h0 = (u32)h64, h1, h2;
u32 h0 = (u32)h64, h1;+#if defined HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 || defined HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
u32 h2;+#endif
/* Test __hash32 */ hash_or[0][0] |= h1 = __hash_32(h0);#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
hash_or[1][0] |= h2 = __hash_32_generic(h0);-#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
if (h1 != h2) {pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",h0, h1, h2);
if (!test_int_hash32(&h0, &h1, &h2)) return false;
}-#endif #endif
/* Test k = 1..32 bits */@@ -107,24 +144,11 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64) return false; } #ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
h2 = hash_64_generic(h64, k);-#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
if (h1 != h2) {pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() ""= %#x", h64, k, h1, h2);
if (!test_int_hash64(&h64, &h0, &h1, &h2, &m, &k)) return false;
}-#else
if (h2 > m) {pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",h64, k, h1, m);return false;}-#endif #endif }
(void)h2; /* Suppress unused variable warning */ return true;}
@@ -150,15 +174,15 @@ test_hash_init(void) /* Check that hashlen_string gets the length right */ if (hashlen_len(hashlen) != j-i) { pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length"
" %u, expected %d",i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
" %u, expected %d",i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);These whitespace changes probably aren't necessary.
Oops, that's my bad. Really unintended changes, thanks for the heads up!
return -EINVAL; } /* Check that the hashes match */ if (hashlen_hash(hashlen) != h0) { pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != "
"full_name_hash() = %08x",i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
"full_name_hash() = %08x",i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);These whitespace changes probably aren't necessary.
return -EINVAL; }@@ -178,14 +202,14 @@ test_hash_init(void) } if (~hash_or[0][0]) { pr_err("OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
hash_or[0][0], -1u);
hash_or[0][0], -1u);This whitespace change probably isn't necessary.
return -EINVAL; }#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 /* Test is pointless if results match */ if (~hash_or[1][0]) { pr_err("OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
hash_or[1][0], -1u);
hash_or[1][0], -1u);You get the idea...
return -EINVAL; }#endif @@ -197,12 +221,12 @@ test_hash_init(void)
if (hash_or[0][i] != m) { pr_err("OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x "
"(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m);
"(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m); return -EINVAL; } if (hash_or[1][i] != m) { pr_err("OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x "
"(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m);
"(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m); return -EINVAL; } }-- 2.33.0
Thanks, -- Isabella Basso