On 1/16/24 10:07 PM, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:33 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Conform the layout, informational and status messages to TAP. No
>> functional change is intended other than the layout of output messages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Use ksft_perror as short hand instead of missing strerror(errno) at
>> one place
>
> Minor thing: I think we should preserve previous changelogs, right?
Definately. There was no changes in v2 for this patch. Hence there isn't
any changelog before this series.
>
>>
>> Tested this by reverting the patch a08c7193e4f18dc8508f2d07d0de2c5b94cb39a3
>> ("mm/filemap: remove hugetlb special casing in filemap.c") as it has
>> broken the test. The bug report can be found at [1].
>>
>> Tested with proposed fix as well [2].
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/079335ab-190f-41f7-b832-6ffe7528fd8b@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/a20e7bdb-7344-306d-e8f5-5ee69af7d5ea@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> .../selftests/mm/hugetlb-read-hwpoison.c | 116 ++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-read-hwpoison.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-read-hwpoison.c
>> index ba6cc6f9cabc..23b41b88c6af 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-read-hwpoison.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-read-hwpoison.c
>> @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ static bool verify_chunk(char *buf, size_t len, char val)
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
>> if (buf[i] != val) {
>> - printf(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "check fail: buf[%lu] = %u != %u\n",
>> - i, buf[i], val);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "check fail: buf[%lu] = %u != %u\n",
>> + i, buf[i], val);
>> return false;
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -75,21 +75,21 @@ static bool seek_read_hugepage_filemap(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size,
>> ssize_t total_ret_count = 0;
>> char val = offset / wr_chunk_size + offset % wr_chunk_size;
>>
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "init val=%u with offset=0x%lx\n", val, offset);
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "expect to read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> - expected);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "init val=%u with offset=0x%lx\n", val, offset);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "expect to read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> + expected);
>> if (lseek(fd, offset, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "seek failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "seek failed");
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> while (offset + total_ret_count < len) {
>> ret_count = read(fd, buf, wr_chunk_size);
>> if (ret_count == 0) {
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "read reach end of the file\n");
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "read reach end of the file\n");
>> break;
>> } else if (ret_count < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "read failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "read failed");
>> break;
>> }
>> ++val;
>> @@ -98,8 +98,8 @@ static bool seek_read_hugepage_filemap(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size,
>>
>> total_ret_count += ret_count;
>> }
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "actually read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> - total_ret_count);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "actually read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> + total_ret_count);
>>
>> return total_ret_count == expected;
>> }
>> @@ -112,15 +112,15 @@ static bool read_hugepage_filemap(int fd, size_t len,
>> ssize_t total_ret_count = 0;
>> char val = 0;
>>
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "expect to read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> - expected);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "expect to read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> + expected);
>> while (total_ret_count < len) {
>> ret_count = read(fd, buf, wr_chunk_size);
>> if (ret_count == 0) {
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "read reach end of the file\n");
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "read reach end of the file\n");
>> break;
>> } else if (ret_count < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "read failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "read failed");
>> break;
>> }
>> ++val;
>> @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@ static bool read_hugepage_filemap(int fd, size_t len,
>>
>> total_ret_count += ret_count;
>> }
>> - printf(PREFIX PREFIX "actually read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> - total_ret_count);
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX PREFIX "actually read 0x%lx bytes of data in total\n",
>> + total_ret_count);
>>
>> return total_ret_count == expected;
>> }
>> @@ -142,14 +142,14 @@ test_hugetlb_read(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size)
>> char *filemap = NULL;
>>
>> if (ftruncate(fd, len) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate failed");
>> return status;
>> }
>>
>> filemap = mmap(NULL, len, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> MAP_SHARED | MAP_POPULATE, fd, 0);
>> if (filemap == MAP_FAILED) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "mmap for primary mapping failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "mmap for primary mapping failed");
>> goto done;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ test_hugetlb_read(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size)
>> munmap(filemap, len);
>> done:
>> if (ftruncate(fd, 0) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate back to 0 failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate back to 0 failed");
>> status = TEST_FAILED;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -179,14 +179,14 @@ test_hugetlb_read_hwpoison(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size,
>> const unsigned long pagesize = getpagesize();
>>
>> if (ftruncate(fd, len) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate failed");
>> return status;
>> }
>>
>> filemap = mmap(NULL, len, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> MAP_SHARED | MAP_POPULATE, fd, 0);
>> if (filemap == MAP_FAILED) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "mmap for primary mapping failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "mmap for primary mapping failed");
>> goto done;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ test_hugetlb_read_hwpoison(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size,
>> */
>> hwp_addr = filemap + len / 2 + pagesize;
>> if (madvise(hwp_addr, pagesize, MADV_HWPOISON) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "MADV_HWPOISON failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "MADV_HWPOISON failed");
>> goto unmap;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ test_hugetlb_read_hwpoison(int fd, size_t len, size_t wr_chunk_size,
>> munmap(filemap, len);
>> done:
>> if (ftruncate(fd, 0) < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate back to 0 failed");
>> + ksft_perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "ftruncate back to 0 failed");
>> status = TEST_FAILED;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -240,27 +240,32 @@ static int create_hugetlbfs_file(struct statfs *file_stat)
>> int fd;
>>
>> fd = memfd_create("hugetlb_tmp", MFD_HUGETLB);
>> - if (fd < 0) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "could not open hugetlbfs file");
>> - return -1;
>> - }
>> + if (fd < 0)
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "could not open hugetlbfs file: %s\n",
>> + strerror(errno));
>>
>> memset(file_stat, 0, sizeof(*file_stat));
>> +
>> if (fstatfs(fd, file_stat)) {
>> - perror(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "fstatfs failed");
>> - goto close;
>> + close(fd);
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "fstatfs failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
>> }
>> if (file_stat->f_type != HUGETLBFS_MAGIC) {
>> - printf(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "not hugetlbfs file\n");
>> - goto close;
>> + close(fd);
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg(PREFIX ERROR_PREFIX "not hugetlbfs file\n");
>> }
>>
>> return fd;
>> -close:
>> - close(fd);
>> - return -1;
>> }
>>
>> +#define KSFT_PRINT_MSG(status, fmt, ...) \
>> + do { \
>> + if (status == TEST_SKIPPED) \
>> + ksft_test_result_skip(fmt, __VA_ARGS__); \
>> + else \
>> + ksft_test_result(status == TEST_PASSED, fmt, __VA_ARGS__); \
>> + } while (0)
>> +
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> int fd;
>> @@ -273,50 +278,37 @@ int main(void)
>> };
>> size_t i;
>>
>> + ksft_print_header();
>> + ksft_set_plan(12);
>
> Minor: can this number be calculated, or at least defined as a macro
> with documents? That would make it easier for reading.
The number can be calculated to some extent via macro. As all the tests
don't define a macro for this, I'll prepare one patch for all the tests
later on.
>
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wr_chunk_sizes); ++i) {
>> - printf("Write/read chunk size=0x%lx\n",
>> - wr_chunk_sizes[i]);
>> + ksft_print_msg("Write/read chunk size=0x%lx\n",
>> + wr_chunk_sizes[i]);
>>
>> fd = create_hugetlbfs_file(&file_stat);
>> - if (fd < 0)
>> - goto create_failure;
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB read regression test...\n");
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX "HugeTLB read regression test...\n");
>> status = test_hugetlb_read(fd, file_stat.f_bsize,
>> wr_chunk_sizes[i]);
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB read regression test...%s\n",
>> - status_to_str(status));
>> + KSFT_PRINT_MSG(status, PREFIX "HugeTLB read regression test...%s\n",
>> + status_to_str(status));
>> close(fd);
>> - if (status == TEST_FAILED)
>> - return -1;
>>
>> fd = create_hugetlbfs_file(&file_stat);
>> - if (fd < 0)
>> - goto create_failure;
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB read HWPOISON test...\n");
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX "HugeTLB read HWPOISON test...\n");
>> status = test_hugetlb_read_hwpoison(fd, file_stat.f_bsize,
>> wr_chunk_sizes[i], false);
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB read HWPOISON test...%s\n",
>> - status_to_str(status));
>> + KSFT_PRINT_MSG(status, PREFIX "HugeTLB read HWPOISON test..%s\n",
>> + status_to_str(status));
>> close(fd);
>> - if (status == TEST_FAILED)
>> - return -1;
>>
>> fd = create_hugetlbfs_file(&file_stat);
>> - if (fd < 0)
>> - goto create_failure;
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB seek then read HWPOISON test...\n");
>> + ksft_print_msg(PREFIX "HugeTLB seek then read HWPOISON test...\n");
>> status = test_hugetlb_read_hwpoison(fd, file_stat.f_bsize,
>> wr_chunk_sizes[i], true);
>> - printf(PREFIX "HugeTLB seek then read HWPOISON test...%s\n",
>> - status_to_str(status));
>> + KSFT_PRINT_MSG(status, PREFIX "HugeTLB seek then read HWPOISON test...%s\n",
>> + status_to_str(status));
>> close(fd);
>> - if (status == TEST_FAILED)
>> - return -1;
>> }
>>
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> -create_failure:
>> - printf(ERROR_PREFIX "Abort test: failed to create hugetlbfs file\n");
>> - return -1;
>> + ksft_finished();
>> }
>> --
>> 2.42.0
>>
>>
>
> This version looks good to me. Maybe someone else need to take another
> look, just add mine:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks
>
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
