On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:41 PM Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 22:53, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the > > top level of the test, e.g.: > > # test_number: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:103 > > lib/printf_kunit.c:167: vsnprintf(buf, 256, "%#-12x", ...) wrote '0x1234abcd ', expected '0x1234abce ' > > # test_number: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:142 > > lib/printf_kunit.c:167: kvasprintf(..., "%#-12x", ...) returned '0x1234abcd ', expected '0x1234abce ' > > > > Actually, I'm not sure that is an improvement as-is, with the two > different line numbers being printed. It takes some thought to > recognize which one is relevant and which one is not. They're both relevant -- `do_test` does a bunch of checks, so you want to know which particular check failed, but also which invocation at the top level resulted in that check failing. > Can't we have a variant of KUNIT_FAIL that allows one to pass the > file/line info when the caller has better info than the location of > the KUNIT_FAIL itself? > > > static void __printf(5, 0) > > -do_test(struct kunit *kunittest, int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen, > > - const char *fmt, va_list ap) > > +do_test(struct kunit *kunittest, const char *file, const int line, int bufsize, const char *expect, > > + int elen, const char *fmt, va_list ap) > > This can't be right, the __printf attribute must be updated accordingly. Good catch. Oddly I'm not able to reproduce any compiler complaints here, even with the attribute completely removed.
