Re: [PATCH v4] resource: add a simple test for walk_iomem_res_desc()

[Chia-I Wu]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 4:36 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:52:26PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:10 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 02:28:26PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> > > > This mainly tests that find_next_iomem_res() does not miss resources.
>
> ...
>
> > > > +     /* build the resource tree */
> > > > +     res[0] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(root.start + 0x0000, 0x1000, "SYSRAM 1",
> > > > +                     IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM);
> > > > +     res[1] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(root.start + 0x1000, 0x1000, "OTHER", 0);
> > > > +
> > > > +     res[2] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(root.start + 0x3000, 0x1000, "NESTED", 0);
> > > > +     res[3] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(root.start + 0x3800, 0x0400, "SYSRAM 2",
> > > > +                     IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM);
> > >
> > > ...here is overlap with the previous resource.
> > >
> > > And here is the gap to the next one, in case we make that overlapping gone.
> > >
> > > > +     res[4] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(root.start + 0x4000, 0x1000, "SYSRAM 3",
> > > > +                     IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM);
> > >
> > > It wasn't the case in previous data. Please, elaborate what's going on here?
> > The test data is chosen to be
> >
> >   first interval: a matching resource (res[0])
> >   second interval: a non-matching resource (res[1])
> >   third interval: a hole
> >   fourth interval: a matching resource (res[3]) nested in a
> > non-matching resource (res[2])
> >   fifth interval: a matching resource (res[4])
> >
> > The idea hasn't changed between revisions.
> >
> > res[3] went from a half of res[2] to a quarter of res[2] in v4.  I
> > guess it causes confusion if it is not viewed as a nested resource.
>
> Okay, so far it's correct data from testing p.o.v.
>
> Maybe you can add a comment on top explaining this layout?
Done in v5.  I also added negative tests for all holes in the test
data.  Hope it's better now.

>
> ...
>
> > > And rather sending one version per 12h, take your time and think more about
> > > test data. What are we testing? Are the testing data correct? Shouldn't we also
> > > have negative test cases?
> > The current choice of test data covers the most common patterns.  Do
> > you have other patterns you want to cover?  I am new to the resource
> > code and that's why I am largely reactive to review feedback.
>
> Nope, seems okay to have what is there for the starter. Later on we might add
> more if required. Just got confused.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>