On certain platforms (powerpcle is the one on which I ran into this), "%Ld" and "%Lu" are unsuitable for printing __s64 and __u64, respectively, resulting in a build warning. Cast to {u,}int64_t, and use the PRI{d,u}64 macros defined in inttypes.h to print them. This ought to be portable to all platforms.
Splitting this off into a separate function lets us remove some lines, and get rid of some (I would argue) stylistically odd cases where we joined printf() and exit() into a single statement with a ,.
Finally, this also fixes a "missing braces around initializer" warning when we initialize prms in wp_range().
Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen axelrasmussen@google.com --- tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 77 +++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c index 9b0912a01777..31e1ff887e4b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c @@ -55,6 +55,8 @@ #include <setjmp.h> #include <stdbool.h> #include <assert.h> +#include <inttypes.h> +#include <stdint.h>
#include "../kselftest.h"
@@ -135,6 +137,12 @@ static void usage(void) exit(1); }
+static void uffd_error(const char *message, __s64 code) +{ + fprintf(stderr, "%s: %" PRId64 "\n", message, (int64_t)code); + exit(1); +} + static void uffd_stats_reset(struct uffd_stats *uffd_stats, unsigned long n_cpus) { @@ -331,7 +339,7 @@ static int my_bcmp(char *str1, char *str2, size_t n)
static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len, bool wp) { - struct uffdio_writeprotect prms = { 0 }; + struct uffdio_writeprotect prms;
/* Write protection page faults */ prms.range.start = start; @@ -340,7 +348,8 @@ static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len, bool wp) prms.mode = wp ? UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP : 0;
if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, &prms)) { - fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%Lx\n", start); + fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", + (uint64_t)start); exit(1); } } @@ -474,14 +483,11 @@ static void retry_copy_page(int ufd, struct uffdio_copy *uffdio_copy, if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_COPY, uffdio_copy)) { /* real retval in ufdio_copy.copy */ if (uffdio_copy->copy != -EEXIST) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_COPY retry error %Ld\n", - uffdio_copy->copy); - exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_COPY retry error", + uffdio_copy->copy); } - } else { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_COPY retry unexpected %Ld\n", - uffdio_copy->copy); exit(1); - } + } else + uffd_error("UFFDIO_COPY retry unexpected", uffdio_copy->copy); }
static int __copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) @@ -502,15 +508,11 @@ static int __copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) uffdio_copy.copy = 0; if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_COPY, &uffdio_copy)) { /* real retval in ufdio_copy.copy */ - if (uffdio_copy.copy != -EEXIST) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_COPY error %Ld\n", - uffdio_copy.copy); - exit(1); - } - } else if (uffdio_copy.copy != page_size) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_COPY unexpected copy %Ld\n", - uffdio_copy.copy); exit(1); - } else { + if (uffdio_copy.copy != -EEXIST) + uffd_error("UFFDIO_COPY error", uffdio_copy.copy); + } else if (uffdio_copy.copy != page_size) + uffd_error("UFFDIO_COPY unexpected copy", uffdio_copy.copy); + else { if (test_uffdio_copy_eexist && retry) { test_uffdio_copy_eexist = false; retry_copy_page(ufd, &uffdio_copy, offset); @@ -788,7 +790,8 @@ static int userfaultfd_open(int features) return 1; } if (uffdio_api.api != UFFD_API) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_API error %Lu\n", uffdio_api.api); + fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_API error: %" PRIu64 "\n", + (uint64_t)uffdio_api.api); return 1; }
@@ -950,13 +953,12 @@ static void retry_uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, offset); if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE, uffdio_zeropage)) { if (uffdio_zeropage->zeropage != -EEXIST) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE retry error %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage->zeropage); - exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE retry error", + uffdio_zeropage->zeropage); } } else { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE retry unexpected %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage->zeropage); exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE retry unexpected", + uffdio_zeropage->zeropage); } }
@@ -979,26 +981,20 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) if (ret) { /* real retval in ufdio_zeropage.zeropage */ if (has_zeropage) { - if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST\n"); - exit(1); - } else { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); - exit(1); - } + uffd_error(uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST ? + "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST" : + "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error", + uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); } else { if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage != -EINVAL) { - fprintf(stderr, - "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE not -EINVAL %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); - exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE not -EINVAL", + uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); } } } else if (has_zeropage) { if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage != page_size) { - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE unexpected %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE unexpected", + uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); } else { if (test_uffdio_zeropage_eexist && retry) { test_uffdio_zeropage_eexist = false; @@ -1008,9 +1004,8 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) return 1; } } else { - fprintf(stderr, - "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE succeeded %Ld\n", - uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); exit(1); + uffd_error("UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE succeeded", + uffdio_zeropage.zeropage); }
return 0;
Hi, Axel,
Looks mostly good to me, but a few nitpickings below.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:15:42PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
[...]
+static void uffd_error(const char *message, __s64 code) +{
- fprintf(stderr, "%s: %" PRId64 "\n", message, (int64_t)code);
- exit(1);
+}
IMHO a macro that can take arbitrary parameters would be nicer, but if it satisfy our need, definitely ok too.
[...]
@@ -340,7 +348,8 @@ static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len, bool wp) prms.mode = wp ? UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP : 0; if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, &prms)) {
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%Lx\n", start);
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
exit(1);(uint64_t)start);
Is it intended to not use uffd_error() here?
} }
[...]
@@ -979,26 +981,20 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) if (ret) { /* real retval in ufdio_zeropage.zeropage */ if (has_zeropage) {
if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST) {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST\n");
exit(1);
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error %Ld\n",
uffdio_zeropage.zeropage);
exit(1);
}
uffd_error(uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST ?
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST" :
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error",
Nit: The indents here are a bit odd..
Thanks,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:10 PM Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Axel,
Looks mostly good to me, but a few nitpickings below.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:15:42PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
[...]
+static void uffd_error(const char *message, __s64 code) +{
fprintf(stderr, "%s: %" PRId64 "\n", message, (int64_t)code);
exit(1);
+}
IMHO a macro that can take arbitrary parameters would be nicer, but if it satisfy our need, definitely ok too.
[...]
@@ -340,7 +348,8 @@ static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len, bool wp) prms.mode = wp ? UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP : 0;
if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, &prms)) {
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%Lx\n", start);
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
(uint64_t)start); exit(1);
Is it intended to not use uffd_error() here?
Yes, this is intentional. This particular case prints the value in hexadecimal, rather than decimal.
(Agree that uffd_error() could be made more general to cover cases like this. I opted for the simplest thing which covers all but two cases - this one, and one where we "return 1;" instead of "exit(1);" - but I don't feel strongly.)
}
}
[...]
@@ -979,26 +981,20 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) if (ret) { /* real retval in ufdio_zeropage.zeropage */ if (has_zeropage) {
if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST) {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST\n");
exit(1);
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error %Ld\n",
uffdio_zeropage.zeropage);
exit(1);
}
uffd_error(uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST ?
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST" :
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error",
Nit: The indents here are a bit odd..
This is what clang-format yields. Are you thinking it would be better to line everything up with the ( in uffd_error( ?
Or, perhaps this case is a good reason to make uffd_error() a variadic macro so we can insert "-EEXIST" || "error" with a "%s".
Thanks,
-- Peter Xu
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:55 AM Axel Rasmussen axelrasmussen@google.com wrote:
This is what clang-format yields. Are you thinking it would be better to line everything up with the ( in uffd_error( ?
Yeah, sometimes clang-format cannot do a good job with the 80 column limit + 8 tabs.
You are definitely not forced to follow clang-format output by any means. Subsystem maintainers decide what style they prefer anyway, which could range from a manual approach to following clang-format strictly. Clang-format implements the general kernel style as closely as we could get it so far (it will improve more in the future when we raise the minimum clang-format version required). See Doc/process/clang-format.rst.
Or, perhaps this case is a good reason to make uffd_error() a variadic macro so we can insert "-EEXIST" || "error" with a "%s".
...and indeed, sometimes it is a hint that simplifying things could help :-)
Cheers, Miguel
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:52:56PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:10 PM Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Axel,
Looks mostly good to me, but a few nitpickings below.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:15:42PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
[...]
+static void uffd_error(const char *message, __s64 code) +{
fprintf(stderr, "%s: %" PRId64 "\n", message, (int64_t)code);
exit(1);
+}
IMHO a macro that can take arbitrary parameters would be nicer, but if it satisfy our need, definitely ok too.
[...]
@@ -340,7 +348,8 @@ static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len, bool wp) prms.mode = wp ? UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP : 0;
if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, &prms)) {
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%Lx\n", start);
fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
(uint64_t)start); exit(1);
Is it intended to not use uffd_error() here?
Yes, this is intentional. This particular case prints the value in hexadecimal, rather than decimal.
(Agree that uffd_error() could be made more general to cover cases like this. I opted for the simplest thing which covers all but two cases - this one, and one where we "return 1;" instead of "exit(1);" - but I don't feel strongly.)
Actually it's as simple as:
#define uffd_error(...) do { \ fprintf(stderr, __VA_ARGS__); \ fprintf(stderr, "\n"); \ exit(1); \ } while (0)
But it's okay, I think.
}
}
[...]
@@ -979,26 +981,20 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry) if (ret) { /* real retval in ufdio_zeropage.zeropage */ if (has_zeropage) {
if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST) {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST\n");
exit(1);
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error %Ld\n",
uffdio_zeropage.zeropage);
exit(1);
}
uffd_error(uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST ?
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST" :
"UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error",
Nit: The indents here are a bit odd..
This is what clang-format yields. Are you thinking it would be better to line everything up with the ( in uffd_error( ?
Or, perhaps this case is a good reason to make uffd_error() a variadic macro so we can insert "-EEXIST" || "error" with a "%s".
Yes. It fixes a build warning, so I think current patch is fine too.
No matter whether you'd like a v2, please feel free to take:
Acked-by: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com
Thanks,
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org