On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 11:44 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Yeah, thanks for the catch. I fixed this locally after you observed the same on the scanf-kunit series.
+__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. */
I'll make this change. Note that this comment isn't changing here, it only appears to be because its indentation changed.
+ + 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.
Ah, I see. Done as you ask.
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.
Thanks!
} 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.
This memory is now allocated using `kunit_kmalloc`:
* kunit_kmalloc() - Like kmalloc() except the allocation is *test managed*. [...] * See kmalloc() and kunit_kmalloc_array() for more information.
`kunit_kmalloc_array`:
* Just like `kmalloc_array(...)`, except the allocation is managed by the test case * and is automatically cleaned up after the test case concludes. See kunit_add_action() * for more information.
So this kfree is not necessary.
} -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
