On Fri 2025-02-21 15:34:31, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Move all tests into `printf_test_cases`. This gives us nicer output in
the event of a failure.
Combine `plain_format` and `plain_hash` into `hash_pointer` since
they're testing the same scenario.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/tests/printf_kunit.c | 331 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------
1 file changed, 121 insertions(+), 210 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/printf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/printf_kunit.c
index 287bbfb61148..013df6f6dd49 100644
--- a/lib/tests/printf_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/tests/printf_kunit.c
@@ -38,13 +38,8 @@ static unsigned int total_tests;
static char *test_buffer;
static char *alloced_buffer;
-static struct kunit *kunittest;
-
-#define tc_fail(fmt, ...) \
- KUNIT_FAIL(kunittest, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
-
-static void __printf(4, 0)
-do_test(int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
+static void __printf(5, 0)
+do_test(struct kunit *kunittest, int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
const char *fmt, va_list ap)
{
va_list aq;
@@ -58,59 +53,64 @@ do_test(int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
[...]
if (memcmp(test_buffer, expect, written)) {
- tc_fail("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote '%s', expected '%.*s'",
- bufsize, fmt, test_buffer, written, expect);
+ KUNIT_FAIL(kunittest, "vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote '%s', expected '%.*s'",
+ bufsize, fmt, test_buffer, written, expect);
return;
}
}
-static void __printf(3, 4)
-__test(const char *expect, int elen, const char *fmt, ...)
+static void __printf(4, 0)
This should be:
static void __printf(4, 5)
The 2nd parameter is zero when the variable list of parameters is
passed using va_list.
+__test(struct kunit *kunittest, const char *expect, int elen, const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list ap;
int rand;
char *p;
@@ -247,89 +225,44 @@ plain_format(void)
#define ZEROS ""
#define ONES ""
-static int
-plain_format(void)
-{
- /* Format is implicitly tested for 32 bit machines by plain_hash() */
- return 0;
-}
-
#endif /* BITS_PER_LONG == 64 */
-static int
-plain_hash_to_buffer(const void *p, char *buf, size_t len)
+static void
+plain_hash_to_buffer(struct kunit *kunittest, const void *p, char *buf, size_t len)
{
- int nchars;
-
- nchars = snprintf(buf, len, "%p", p);
-
- if (nchars != PTR_WIDTH)
- return -1;
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(kunittest, snprintf(buf, len, "%p", p), PTR_WIDTH);
if (strncmp(buf, PTR_VAL_NO_CRNG, PTR_WIDTH) == 0) {
kunit_warn(kunittest, "crng possibly not yet initialized. plain 'p' buffer contains \"%s\"",
PTR_VAL_NO_CRNG);
- return 0;
}
-
- return 0;
}
-static int
-plain_hash(void)
-{
- char buf[PLAIN_BUF_SIZE];
- int ret;
-
- ret = plain_hash_to_buffer(PTR, buf, PLAIN_BUF_SIZE);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
- if (strncmp(buf, PTR_STR, PTR_WIDTH) == 0)
- return -1;
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-/*
- * We can't use test() to test %p because we don't know what output to expect
- * after an address is hashed.
- */
static void
-plain(void)
+hash_pointer(struct kunit *kunittest)
{
- int err;
+ if (no_hash_pointers)
+ kunit_skip(kunittest, "hash pointers disabled");
- if (no_hash_pointers) {
- kunit_warn(kunittest, "skipping plain 'p' tests");
- return;
- }
+ char buf[PLAIN_BUF_SIZE];
- err = plain_hash();
- if (err) {
- tc_fail("plain 'p' does not appear to be hashed");
- return;
- }
+ plain_hash_to_buffer(kunittest, PTR, buf, PLAIN_BUF_SIZE);
- err = plain_format();
- if (err) {
- tc_fail("hashing plain 'p' has unexpected format");
- }
+ /*
+ * We can't use test() to test %p because we don't know what output to expect
+ * after an address is hashed.
+ */
The code does not longer print a reasonable error message on failure.
I would extend the comment to make it easier to understand the
meaning. Also I would use the imperative style. Something like:
/*
* The hash of %p is unpredictable, therefore test() cannot be used.
* Instead, verify that the first 32 bits are zeros on a 64-bit system,
* and confirm the non-hashed value is not printed.
*/
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ(kunittest, buf, ZEROS, strlen(ZEROS));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ(kunittest, buf+strlen(ZEROS), PTR_STR, PTR_WIDTH);
This looks wrong. It should be either:
KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ(kunittest, buf, PTR_STR, PTR_WIDTH);
or
KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ(kunittest,
buf + strlen(ZEROS),
PTR_STR + strlen(ZEROS),
PTR_WIDTH - strlen(ZEROS));
I would use the 1st variant. It is easier and it works the same way
as the original check.
Anyway, it is a great clean up of the pointer tests. I have wanted to do it
since a long time but I never found time.
}
static void
-test_hashed(const char *fmt, const void *p)
+test_hashed(struct kunit *kunittest, const char *fmt, const void *p)
{
char buf[PLAIN_BUF_SIZE];
- int ret;
- /*
- * No need to increase failed test counter since this is assumed
- * to be called after plain().
- */
- ret = plain_hash_to_buffer(p, buf, PLAIN_BUF_SIZE);
- if (ret)
- return;
+ plain_hash_to_buffer(kunittest, p, buf, PLAIN_BUF_SIZE);
test(buf, fmt, p);
}
@@ -739,11 +664,9 @@ flags(void)
(unsigned long) gfp);
gfp |= __GFP_HIGH;
test(cmp_buffer, "%pGg", &gfp);
-
- kfree(cmp_buffer);
I belive that the kfree() should stay. Otherwise, the test leaks memory
in every run.
}
-static void fwnode_pointer(void)
+static void fwnode_pointer(struct kunit *kunittest)
{
const struct software_node first = { .name = "first" };
const struct software_node second = { .name = "second", .parent = &first };
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Petr
