Hi Maíra,
On Sun, 2022-08-21 at 11:02 -0300, Maíra Canal wrote:
On 8/21/22 10:13, Sander Vanheule wrote:
On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This should help with finding out why a certain test fails.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi... Suggested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule sander@svanheule.net Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ static cpumask_t mask_empty; static cpumask_t mask_all; +#define STR_MASK(m) #m +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, cpumask_bits(mask))
static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) { KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit *test) /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ cpu_hotplug_disable(); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask);
EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); cpumask_setall(&mask_all); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask);
It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details?
I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there.
I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return any result.
Maybe you can use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG to print a more detailed error and avoid printing the info when the test doesn't fail.
Yes, this is what I currently have for use with the _MSG() variants of the macros:
+#define MASK_MSG(m) \ + "%s contains %sCPUs %*pbl", #m, (cpumask_weight(m) ? "" : "no "), nr_cpumask_bits, cpumask_bits(m) +
For example, with (bogus) KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, ..., MASK_MSG(mask)) this becomes (trimmed):
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --build_dir=build-um cpumask [...] [18:15:33] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:60 [18:15:33] Expected cpumask_empty(((struct cpumask *)(1 ? (cpu_all_bits) : (void *)sizeof(__check_is_bitmap(cpu_all_bits))))) to be true, but is false [18:15:33] [18:15:33] cpu_all_mask contains CPUs 0 [18:15:33] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:61 [18:15:33] Expected cpumask_full(&mask_empty) to be true, but is false [18:15:33] [18:15:33] &mask_empty contains no CPUs [18:15:33] not ok 1 - test_cpumask_weight [18:15:33] [FAILED] test_cpumask_weight [...]
Or on a real system: [ 1.246805] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:59 [ 1.246805] Expected cpumask_empty(((struct cpumask *)(1 ? (cpu_all_bits) : (void *)sizeof(__check_is_bitmap(cpu_all_bits))))) to be true, but is false [ 1.246805] [ 1.246805] cpu_all_mask contains CPUs 0-1 [ 1.249756] not ok 1 - test_cpumask_weight
I will send an updated series tomorrow, in case David or others have more more comments.
Best, Sander