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.
