On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This > > should help with finding out why a certain test fails. > > > > Link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 > > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > > static cpumask_t mask_empty; > > static cpumask_t mask_all; > > > > +#define STR_MASK(m) #m > > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ > > + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, > > cpumask_bits(mask)) > > + > > static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) > > { > > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); > > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit > > *test) > > /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ > > cpu_hotplug_disable(); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); > > + > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); > > > > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) > > cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); > > cpumask_setall(&mask_all); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); > > + > > It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional > on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there. I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return any result. Best, Sander > > > return 0; > > } > > > > -- > > 2.37.2
