On Tue, Nov 01, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/test_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/test_util.c > > > index ec0f070a6f21..210e98a49a83 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/test_util.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/test_util.c > > > @@ -353,3 +353,19 @@ int atoi_paranoid(const char *num_str) > > > > > > return num; > > > } > > > + > > > +uint32_t atoi_positive(const char *num_str) > > > > I think it makes sense to inline atoi_positive() and atoi_non_negative() in > > test_util.h. Depending on developer's setups, it might be one less layer to jump > > through to look at the implementation. > > > > I am not sure if this makes life much easier for developers, as > "inline" can totally be ignored by the compiler. Also, not sure how > much qualitative improvement it will add in the developer's code > browsing journey. Anyways, I will add "inline" in the next version. To be clear, it's not about adding "inline", it's about not having separate declarations and definitions. E.g. I've yet to achieve a setup that has 100% accuracy when it comes to navigating to a definition versus a declaration. And when poking around code, seeing a "static inline" function provides a hint that a function is likely a simple wrapper without even having to look at the implementation. These are all small things, but I can't think of a reason _not_ to inline these trivial wrappers. > > Last thought: my vote would be to ignore the 80 char soft limit when adding the > > "name" to these calls, in every case except nr_memslot_modifications the overrun > > is relatively minor and not worth wrapping. See below for my thougts on that one. > > > > > break; > > > case 'm': > > > - max_mem = atoi_paranoid(optarg) * size_1gb; > > > + max_mem = atoi_positive(optarg) * size_1gb; > > > TEST_ASSERT(max_mem > 0, "memory size must be >0"); > > > > This assert can be dropped, max_mem is a uint64_t so wrapping to '0' is impossible. > > > > I intentionally kept it, as it is also protecting against having > accidently making size_1gb to 0. Heh, the test has far, far bigger problems if it screws up size_1gb. And that's an orthogonal concern as the test would be horrifically broken regardless of whether or not the user specified '-m' and/or '-s'. A better approach is to replace the homebrewed size_1gb with SZ_1G from tools/include/linux/sizes.h. I, and many others, completely overlooked size.h.
