On 8/21/22 10:13, Sander Vanheule wrote: > 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. Maybe you can use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG to print a more detailed error and avoid printing the info when the test doesn't fail. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > Best, > Sander > >> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -- >>> 2.37.2 >
