On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:23:04PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> check_acked is starting to become hard to read.
Agreed. check_acked() could probably have some of its subtests factored
out to improve its readability.
> The function itself is rather inconsistent, as it mixes regular
> printf's with report_info's.
Sounds good
> The return value is also never used:
>
> $ awk '/check_acked\(/ && !/const/' arm/gic.c
> check_acked("IPI: self", &mask);
> check_acked("IPI: directed", &mask);
> check_acked("IPI: broadcast", &mask);
That's good, since it's a void function :-)
>
> What I'm thinking is that we can rewrite check_acked to return true/false (or
> 0/1), meaning success or failure, remove the testname parameter, replace the
> printfs to report_info, and have the caller do a report based on the value
> returned by check_acked.
>
> Rough version, compile tested only, I'm sure it can be improved:
>
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index adb6aa464513..5453f2fd3d5f 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ static void stats_reset(void)
> smp_wmb();
> }
>
> -static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
> +static bool check_acked(cpumask_t *mask)
We have several check_* functions in arm/gic.c, and they're all void
functions. Changing this one to a bool would be inconsistent, but
maybe that consistency isn't that important, or maybe they should all
be bool?
> {
> int missing = 0, extra = 0, unexpected = 0;
> int nr_pass, cpu, i;
> - bool bad = false;
> + bool success = true;
>
> /* Wait up to 5s for all interrupts to be delivered */
> for (i = 0; i < 50; ++i) {
> @@ -76,22 +76,21 @@ static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
> acked[cpu] == 1 : acked[cpu] == 0;
>
> if (bad_sender[cpu] != -1) {
> - printf("cpu%d received IPI from wrong sender %d\n",
> + report_info("cpu%d received IPI from wrong sender
> %d\n",
> cpu, bad_sender[cpu]);
> - bad = true;
> + success = false;
> }
>
> if (bad_irq[cpu] != -1) {
> - printf("cpu%d received wrong irq %d\n",
> + report_info("cpu%d received wrong irq %d\n",
> cpu, bad_irq[cpu]);
> - bad = true;
> + success = false;
> }
> }
> if (nr_pass == nr_cpus) {
> - report("%s", !bad, testname);
> if (i)
> report_info("took more than %d ms", i * 100);
> - return;
> + return success;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -107,9 +106,9 @@ static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
> }
> }
>
> - report("%s", false, testname);
> report_info("Timed-out (5s). ACKS: missing=%d extra=%d unexpected=%d",
> missing, extra, unexpected);
> + return false;
> }
>
> static void check_spurious(void)
> @@ -183,13 +182,11 @@ static void ipi_test_self(void)
> {
> cpumask_t mask;
>
> - report_prefix_push("self");
> stats_reset();
> cpumask_clear(&mask);
> cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> gic->ipi.send_self();
> - check_acked("IPI: self", &mask);
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + report("self", check_acked(&mask));
> }
>
> static void ipi_test_smp(void)
> @@ -203,7 +200,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
> for (i = smp_processor_id() & 1; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
> cpumask_clear_cpu(i, &mask);
> gic_ipi_send_mask(IPI_IRQ, &mask);
> - check_acked("IPI: directed", &mask);
> + report("directed", check_acked(&mask));
> report_prefix_pop();
Shouldn't we also drop the "target-list" prefix push/pop?
>
> report_prefix_push("broadcast");
> @@ -211,7 +208,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
> cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
> cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> gic->ipi.send_broadcast();
> - check_acked("IPI: broadcast", &mask);
> + report("broadcast", check_acked(&mask));
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
Shouldn't we also drop the "broadcast" prefix push/pop?
>
> I've removed "IPI" from the report string because the prefixed was already pushed
> in main.
>
> Andrew, what do you think? Are we missing something obvious? Do you have a better
> idea?
I'm happy to see cleanups and haven't had a chance to look too closely at
the gic tests in a while so I have no better ideas :-)
Thanks,
drew
