On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 23:42, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:27 AM Rasmus Villemoes > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 20:36, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others > > > being bitmap and scanf), the rest having been converted to KUnit. > > > > > > I tested this using: > > > > > > $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 printf > > > > > > I have also sent out a series converting scanf[0]. > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250204-scanf-kunit-convert-v3-0-386d7c3ee714@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u [0] > > > > > > > Sorry, but NAK, not in this form. > > > > Please read the previous threads to understand what is wrong with this > > mechanical approach. Not only is it wrong, it also actively makes the > > test suite much less useful. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f408efbd-10f7-f1dd-9baa-0f1233cafffc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/876cc862-56f1-7330-f988-0248bec2fbad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0ab618c7-8c5c-00ae-8e08-0c1b99f3bf5c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I think the previous attempt was close to something acceptable (around > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/57976ff4-7845-d721-ced1-1fe439000a9b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/), > > but I don't know what happened to it. > > > > Rasmus > > Thanks Rasmus, I wasn't aware of that prior effort. I've gone through > and adopted your comments - the result is a first patch that is much > smaller (104 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)) and failure messages > that are quite close to what is emitted now. I've taken care to keep > all the control flow the same, as you requested. The previous > discussion concluded with a promise to send another patch which didn't > happen. May I send a v2 with these changes, or are there more > fundamental objections? I'll also cc Arpitha and Brendan. The new > failure output: > > # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:95 > vsnprintf(buf, 256, "%piS|%pIS", ...) wrote > '127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1', expected '127-000.000.001|127.0.0.1' > # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:95 > vsnprintf(buf, 19, "%piS|%pIS", ...) wrote '127.000.000.001|12', > expected '127-000.000.001|12' > # ip4: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:131 > kvasprintf(..., "%piS|%pIS", ...) returned > '127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1', expected '127-000.000.001|127.0.0.1' > This failure message looks good to me. The ones in the current patch are very verbose, and while the memory comparisons could be useful for the overflow/buffer size tests, for simple string comparisons, having the string in a readable format is best. Rasmus: the KUnit framework has since added a summary line to the output by default, which should also make this less of a regression from the existing format: # printf: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28 Cheers, -- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
