1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
  4. View patch

[PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages

Tamir Duberstein posted 4 patches 10 months, 1 week ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
Posted by Tamir Duberstein 10 months, 1 week ago 
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
top level of the test.

Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
 lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
@@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
 static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
 static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
 
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
+typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
 
-static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
-_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
-	int n_args, ...)
+static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
+_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
+	const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
 {
 	va_list ap, ap_copy;
 	int ret;
@@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ _test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
 	va_end(ap_copy);
 
 	if (ret != n_args) {
-		pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d\n",
-			string, fmt, ret, n_args);
+		pr_warn("%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d\n",
+			file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args);
 		goto fail;
 	}
 
-	ret = (*fn)(check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
+	ret = (*fn)(file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 	if (ret)
 		goto fail;
 
@@ -67,88 +67,88 @@ do {										\
 		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);			\
+			pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
+				file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got);		\
 			return 1;						\
 		}								\
 	}									\
 	return 0;								\
 } while (0)
 
-static int __init check_ull(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			    const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ull(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			    const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const unsigned long long *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%llu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_ll(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			   const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ll(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			   const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const long long *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%lld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_ulong(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			   const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ulong(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			      const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const unsigned long *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%lu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_long(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			  const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_long(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			     const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const long *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%ld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_uint(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			     const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_uint(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			     const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const unsigned int *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%u", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_int(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			    const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_int(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			    const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const int *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%d", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_ushort(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			       const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ushort(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			       const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const unsigned short *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%hu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_short(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			       const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_short(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			      const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const short *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%hd", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_uchar(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			       const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_uchar(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			      const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const unsigned char *pval = check_data;
 
 	_check_numbers_template("%hhu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
 }
 
-static int __init check_char(const void *check_data, const char *string,
-			       const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+			     const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
 {
 	const signed char *pval = check_data;
 
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ do {									\
 	T result = ~expect_val; /* should be overwritten */		\
 									\
 	snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect_val);		\
-	_test(fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result);	\
+	_test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result);	\
 } while (0)
 
 #define simple_numbers_loop(T, gen_fmt, scan_fmt, fn)			\
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len
 #define test_array_8(fn, check_data, string, fmt, arr)				\
 do {										\
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8);					\
-	_test(fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8,					\
+	_test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8,		\
 		&(arr)[0], &(arr)[1], &(arr)[2], &(arr)[3],			\
 		&(arr)[4], &(arr)[5], &(arr)[6], &(arr)[7]);			\
 } while (0)
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ do {										\
 	const T expect[2] = { expect0, expect1 };				\
 	T result[2] = { (T)~expect[0], (T)~expect[1] };				\
 										\
-	_test(fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]);	\
+	_test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]);	\
 } while (0)
 
 /*

-- 
2.48.1
Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
Posted by Petr Mladek 9 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> top level of the test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> ---
>  lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
> --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
>  static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
>  static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
>  
> -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
> -			const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> +			const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
>  
> -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
> -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
> -	int n_args, ...)
> +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init

This should be:

static void __scanf(6, 8) __init

The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list.
The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed
via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).

Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com
kernel test robot, see
https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com

Best Regards,
Petr
Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
Posted by Tamir Duberstein 9 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:56 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> > top level of the test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> > index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> > @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
> >  static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
> >  static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
> >
> > -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
> > -                     const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> > +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> > +                     const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> >
> > -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
> > -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
> > -     int n_args, ...)
> > +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
>
> This should be:
>
> static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
>
> The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list.
> The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed
> via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).
>
> Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com
> kernel test robot, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr

Thanks for explaining!
Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
Posted by Petr Mladek 9 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> top level of the test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>

I like it. It helps a lot to locate the failing test.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.