From 5404a7f1c21cfda061712bedf2d06cc0f6c755e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:34:04 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] XArray tests: Correct some 64-bit assumptions The test-suite caught these two mistakes when compiled for 32-bit. I had only been running the test-suite in 64-bit mode. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox --- lib/test_xarray.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/test_xarray.c b/lib/test_xarray.c index e5294b20b52f..5f9c14e975a4 100644 --- a/lib/test_xarray.c +++ b/lib/test_xarray.c @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ static noinline void check_multi_store(struct xarray *xa) rcu_read_unlock(); /* We can erase multiple values with a single store */ - xa_store_order(xa, 0, 63, NULL, GFP_KERNEL); + xa_store_order(xa, 0, BITS_PER_LONG - 1, NULL, GFP_KERNEL); XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_empty(xa)); /* Even when the first slot is empty but the others aren't */ @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static noinline void check_store_range(struct xarray *xa) __check_store_range(xa, 4095 + i, 4095 + j); __check_store_range(xa, 4096 + i, 4096 + j); __check_store_range(xa, 123456 + i, 123456 + j); - __check_store_range(xa, UINT_MAX + i, UINT_MAX + j); + __check_store_range(xa, (1 << 24) + i, (1 << 24) + j); } } } -- 2.30.2