On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 2025-03-06 09:25:43, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:25 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri 2025-02-21 15:34:30, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > Convert the printf() self-test to a KUnit test.
> > > >
> > > > In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
> > > > refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
> > > > test case.
> > > >
> > > > --- a/lib/test_printf.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/tests/printf_kunit.c
> > > > @@ -57,52 +58,50 @@ do_test(int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
> > > > va_end(aq);
> > > >
> > > > if (ret != elen) {
> > > > - pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) returned %d, expected %d\n",
> > > > + tc_fail("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) returned %d, expected %d",
> > >
> > > 1. It looks a bit strange that the 1st patch replaces pr_warn() with
> > > tc_fail() which hides KUNIT_FAIL().
> > >
> > > And the 2nd patch replaces tc_fail() with KUNIT_FAIL().
> > >
> > > It looks like a non-necessary churn.
> > >
> > > It would be better to avoid the temporary "tc_fail" and swith to
> > > KUNIT_FAIL() already in this patch.
> > >
> > > I did not find any comment about this in the earier versions of the
> > > patchset.
> > >
> > > Is it just a result of the evolution of the patchset or
> > > is there any motivation for this?
> >
> > The motivation was to keep the width of the macro the same in this
> > first patch for ease of review, particularly in the 7 instances where
> > the invocation wraps to a second line. If you prefer I go straight to
> > KUNIT_FAIL, I can make that change.
>
> I see. It might have been useful when the patch removed the trailing '\n'.
> But you are going to add it back. So there won't be any hidden change.
> So I would prefer to go straight to KUNIT_FAIL().
👍 I've restored all the newlines and added a few previously missing ones.
> > > > @@ -842,13 +836,15 @@ test_pointer(void)
> > > > fourcc_pointer();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static void __init selftest(void)
> > > > +static void printf_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > > {
> > > > alloced_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE + 2*PAD_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > if (!alloced_buffer)
> > > > return;
> > >
> > > I would use here:
> > >
> > > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, alloced_buffer);
> > >
> > > And move the same change for the other kmalloc() location from
> > > the 2nd patch.
> >
> > I didn't do that here because I was trying to keep this patch as small
> > as possible, and I wrote that in the commit message.
> >
> > As for using KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL here, that would have to change
> > back to an error return in the 2nd patch because this code moves into
> > `suite_init`, which is called with `struct kunit_suite` rather than
> > `struct kunit_test`, and KUnit assertion macros do not work with the
> > former (and for good reason, because failures in suite setup cannot be
> > attributed to a particular test case).
>
> I see. KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() can't be used in the .suite_exit() callback.
>
> > So I'd prefer to leave this as is.
>
> I agree to leave this as is.
👍
