On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Note to myself: Read the whole sentence! I skipped "in test_util.h". Got it. > > > 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. I will replace it.
