tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly
introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to
unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
---
The changes in ptrace.c were earlier a part of the following:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625122408.1439097-6-dev.jain@arm.com/
which were reviewed by Mark.
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c | 8 ++++----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c
index e4fa507cbdd0..b51d21f78cf9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c
@@ -163,10 +163,10 @@ static void test_hw_debug(pid_t child, int type, const char *type_name)
static int do_child(void)
{
if (ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, -1, NULL, NULL))
- ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno));
+ ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");
if (raise(SIGSTOP))
- ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
+ ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c
index d704511a0955..5ec9a18ec802 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static int check_gpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, uint64_t s
*/
for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) {
if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) {
- ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n",
+ ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n",
cfg->name, sve_vl, i,
gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]);
errors++;
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static int check_fpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl,
if (!sve_vl && !(svcr & SVCR_SM_MASK)) {
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fpr_in); i++) {
if (fpr_in[i] != fpr_out[i]) {
- ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %llx != %llx\n",
+ ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %lx != %lx\n",
cfg->name,
i / 2, i % 2,
fpr_in[i], fpr_out[i]);
@@ -294,13 +294,13 @@ static int check_svcr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl,
int errors = 0;
if (svcr_out & SVCR_SM_MASK) {
- ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %llx\n",
+ ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %lx\n",
cfg->name, svcr_out);
errors++;
}
if ((svcr_in & SVCR_ZA_MASK) != (svcr_out & SVCR_ZA_MASK)) {
- ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %llx != %llx\n",
+ ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %lx != %lx\n",
cfg->name, svcr_in, svcr_out);
errors++;
}
--
2.30.2On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> - ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno));
> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");
>
> if (raise(SIGSTOP))
> - ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the
%s would be better.
> for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) {
> if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) {
> - ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n",
> + ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n",
> cfg->name, sve_vl, i,
> gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]);
> errors++;
This is a different pattern of warning, it'd be easier to review if each
patch only followed one pattern. There's no code overlap between the
changes.
On 8/28/24 16:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
>> - ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno));
>> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");
>>
>> if (raise(SIGSTOP))
>> - ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
>> + ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
> The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the
> %s would be better.
ksft_exit_fail_perror() can do that thing for us.
>
>> for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) {
>> if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) {
>> - ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n",
>> + ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n",
>> cfg->name, sve_vl, i,
>> gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]);
>> errors++;
> This is a different pattern of warning, it'd be easier to review if each
> patch only followed one pattern. There's no code overlap between the
> changes.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:55:33AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> On 8/28/24 16:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > - ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
> > > + ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
> > The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the
> > %s would be better.
> ksft_exit_fail_perror() can do that thing for us.
Oh, sorry - I missed that it was changing to _perror() as well as
removing the argument. Yes, that's fine.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly > introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to > unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is. Will
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > > A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly > > introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to > > unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. > What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the > code is fine as-is. IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which are probably a better choice here.
On 8/28/24 16:31, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: >>> A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly >>> introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to >>> unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. >> What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the >> code is fine as-is. > IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which > are probably a better choice here. Well, then I will just send a patch fixing only the %s thing; I don't want to get lost into format specifiers right now :)
On 8/27/24 18:03, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: >> A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly >> introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to >> unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. > What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the > code is fine as-is. I get a lot of warnings like these: https://www.codedump.xyz/cpp/Zs6d7saC1IRuWV2O > > Will
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.