On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 11:44 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com 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@gmail.com
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