Some tests, such as overflow_kunit(), uses unsigned int, But kunit_binary_assert_format() only prints signed int, this commit also deals with the unsigned int print.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org --- lib/kunit/assert.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c index 202f9fdeed0e..3ae90c09986a 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c @@ -104,12 +104,23 @@ void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert, binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->operation, binary_assert->right_text); - string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n", + + if (binary_assert->left_value - 1 < 0) { + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n", + binary_assert->left_text, + binary_assert->left_value); + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld", + binary_assert->right_text, + binary_assert->right_value); + } + else { + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu\n", binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->left_value); - string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld", + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu", binary_assert->right_text, binary_assert->right_value); + } } kunit_assert_print_msg(assert, stream); }
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 prerequisite-patch-id: bf4b0962b0b955e4e45f5d25fece889562118158
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:46 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
Some tests, such as overflow_kunit(), uses unsigned int, But kunit_binary_assert_format() only prints signed int, this commit also deals with the unsigned int print.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
lib/kunit/assert.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c index 202f9fdeed0e..3ae90c09986a 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c @@ -104,12 +104,23 @@ void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert, binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->operation, binary_assert->right_text);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",
if (binary_assert->left_value - 1 < 0) {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",binary_assert->left_text,binary_assert->left_value);string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",binary_assert->right_text,binary_assert->right_value);}else {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu\n", binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->left_value);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu", binary_assert->right_text, binary_assert->right_value);}
I agree that you found a bug here; however, I disagree that this is the correct fix. Given that the value is stored as a long long; isn't the value always stored as a signed value? So if the value overflows, won't it still not pass the check you have here?
} kunit_assert_print_msg(assert, stream);}
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 prerequisite-patch-id: bf4b0962b0b955e4e45f5d25fece889562118158 -- 2.26.2
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:30 PM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:46 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
Some tests, such as overflow_kunit(), uses unsigned int, But kunit_binary_assert_format() only prints signed int, this commit also deals with the unsigned int print.
Oops, Thanks! I'll fix it.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
lib/kunit/assert.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c index 202f9fdeed0e..3ae90c09986a 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c @@ -104,12 +104,23 @@ void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert, binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->operation, binary_assert->right_text);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",
if (binary_assert->left_value - 1 < 0) {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",binary_assert->left_text,binary_assert->left_value);string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",binary_assert->right_text,binary_assert->right_value);}else {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu\n", binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->left_value);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu", binary_assert->right_text, binary_assert->right_value);}I agree that you found a bug here; however, I disagree that this is the correct fix. Given that the value is stored as a long long; isn't the value always stored as a signed value? So if the value overflows, won't it still not pass the check you have here?
} kunit_assert_print_msg(assert, stream);}
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 prerequisite-patch-id: bf4b0962b0b955e4e45f5d25fece889562118158 -- 2.26.2
Hi Brendan,
Actually https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11724995/ solves my problem with unsigned int, since I can customize the Expected message with this patch.
I think you can ignore this patch :)
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:37 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:30 PM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:46 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
Some tests, such as overflow_kunit(), uses unsigned int, But kunit_binary_assert_format() only prints signed int, this commit also deals with the unsigned int print.
Oops, Thanks! I'll fix it.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
lib/kunit/assert.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c index 202f9fdeed0e..3ae90c09986a 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c @@ -104,12 +104,23 @@ void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert, binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->operation, binary_assert->right_text);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",
if (binary_assert->left_value - 1 < 0) {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",binary_assert->left_text,binary_assert->left_value);string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",binary_assert->right_text,binary_assert->right_value);}else {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu\n", binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->left_value);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu", binary_assert->right_text, binary_assert->right_value);}I agree that you found a bug here; however, I disagree that this is the correct fix. Given that the value is stored as a long long; isn't the value always stored as a signed value? So if the value overflows, won't it still not pass the check you have here?
} kunit_assert_print_msg(assert, stream);}
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 prerequisite-patch-id: bf4b0962b0b955e4e45f5d25fece889562118158 -- 2.26.2
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:01 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
Hi Brendan,
Actually https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11724995/ solves my problem with unsigned int, since I can customize the Expected message with this patch.
I think you can ignore this patch :)
Got it. Sounds good :-)
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:37 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:30 PM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:46 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
Some tests, such as overflow_kunit(), uses unsigned int, But kunit_binary_assert_format() only prints signed int, this commit also deals with the unsigned int print.
Oops, Thanks! I'll fix it.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
lib/kunit/assert.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c index 202f9fdeed0e..3ae90c09986a 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c @@ -104,12 +104,23 @@ void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert, binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->operation, binary_assert->right_text);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",
if (binary_assert->left_value - 1 < 0) {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld\n",binary_assert->left_text,binary_assert->left_value);string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",binary_assert->right_text,binary_assert->right_value);}else {string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu\n", binary_assert->left_text, binary_assert->left_value);
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %lld",
string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == %llu", binary_assert->right_text, binary_assert->right_value);}I agree that you found a bug here; however, I disagree that this is the correct fix. Given that the value is stored as a long long; isn't the value always stored as a signed value? So if the value overflows, won't it still not pass the check you have here?
} kunit_assert_print_msg(assert, stream);}
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 prerequisite-patch-id: bf4b0962b0b955e4e45f5d25fece889562118158 -- 2.26.2
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Brendan Higgins -
Vitor Massaru Iha