The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
redundant pr_debug() logs.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
lib/test_scanf.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
index 44f8508c9d88..07444a852fd4 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
@@ -62,10 +62,8 @@ _test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
#define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \
do { \
- pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
- pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
if (got != *expect) { \
pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
str, fmt, *expect, got); \
@@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \
total_tests++; \
len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
- pr_debug(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \
if (got != (expect)) { \
fail = true; \
pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
--
2.48.1On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> redundant pr_debug() logs.
...
> #define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \
> do { \
> - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
> typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
> - pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
> if (got != *expect) { \
> pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
> str, fmt, *expect, got); \
> @@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \
> total_tests++; \
> len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
> got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
> - pr_debug(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \
> if (got != (expect)) { \
> fail = true; \
> pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> ...
>
> > #define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \
> > do { \
> > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
>
> What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
> > for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
> > typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
> > - pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
> > if (got != *expect) { \
> > pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
> > str, fmt, *expect, got); \
> > @@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \
> > total_tests++; \
> > len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
> > got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
> > - pr_debug(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \
> > if (got != (expect)) { \
> > fail = true; \
> > pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
...
> > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> >
> > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
>
> Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
(I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
it safe to do?")
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:58 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> ...
>
> > > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> > >
> > > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> >
> > Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
>
> Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
> I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
>
> (I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
> explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
> it safe to do?")
The true answer to "why is this needed" is Petr requested it in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6s2eqh0jkYHntUL@pathway.suse.cz/ (again,
lore is having issues):
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> But when thinking more about it. I think that even pr_debug() is not
> the right solution.
>
> IMHO, we really want to print these details only when the test fails.
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
The commit message already answers "why is it safe to do":
> The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> redundant pr_debug() logs.
Perhaps what you're asking for is an assertion to be added if n_args
== 0? I think that would make sense. Does it belong in this series?
Tamir
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:02:59AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:58 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
...
> > > > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> > > >
> > > > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> > >
> > > Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
> >
> > Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
> > I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
> >
> > (I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
> > explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
> > it safe to do?")
>
> The true answer to "why is this needed" is Petr requested it in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6s2eqh0jkYHntUL@pathway.suse.cz/ (again,
> lore is having issues):
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
[...]
> > But when thinking more about it. I think that even pr_debug() is not
> > the right solution.
> >
> > IMHO, we really want to print these details only when the test fails.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
>
> The commit message already answers "why is it safe to do":
Not really. It answers that "why is it safe to do when test case fails?".
> > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> Perhaps what you're asking for is an assertion to be added if n_args
> == 0? I think that would make sense. Does it belong in this series?
I don't know if it's possible case. I don't know if we need an assertion.
Please, research.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:02:59AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:58 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > > > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> > > > >
> > > > > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> > > >
> > > > Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
> > >
> > > Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
> > > I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
> > >
> > > (I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
> > > explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
> > > it safe to do?")
> >
> > The true answer to "why is this needed" is Petr requested it in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6s2eqh0jkYHntUL@pathway.suse.cz/ (again,
> > lore is having issues):
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > But when thinking more about it. I think that even pr_debug() is not
> > > the right solution.
> > >
> > > IMHO, we really want to print these details only when the test fails.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Petr
> >
> > The commit message already answers "why is it safe to do":
>
> Not really. It answers that "why is it safe to do when test case fails?".
>
> > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
> >
> > Perhaps what you're asking for is an assertion to be added if n_args
> > == 0? I think that would make sense. Does it belong in this series?
>
> I don't know if it's possible case. I don't know if we need an assertion.
> Please, research.
Such an assertion is not necessary. `_check_numbers_template` is
called from `check_{ull,ll,ulong,long,uint,int,ushort,short,uchar,char}`
which are in turn called from `_test`:
> if (ret != n_args) {
> KUNIT_FAIL(test, "vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d", string, fmt, ret, n_args);
> } else {
> (*fn)(test, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap); // <-- `fn` is `check_*`.
> }
So `n_args` comes from the test expectation, and it's already checked
against the return value of `vsscanf`.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.