lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: support failure from dynamic analysis tools
From
Date
On 4/2/21 3:25 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:53 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/21 2:55 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@google.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to fail the currently running
>>>> test, if any, with an error message.
>>>>
>>>> This is largely intended for dynamic analysis tools like UBSAN and for
>>>> fakes.
>>>> E.g. say I had a fake ops struct for testing and I wanted my `free`
>>>> function to complain if it was called with an invalid argument, or
>>>> caught a double-free. Most return void and have no normal means of
>>>> signalling failure (e.g. super_operations, iommu_ops, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> Key points:
>>>> * Always update current->kunit_test so anyone can use it.
>>>> * commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") only updated it for
>>>> CONFIG_KASAN=y
>>>>
>>>> * Create a new header <kunit/test-bug.h> so non-test code doesn't have
>>>> to include all of <kunit/test.h> (e.g. lib/ubsan.c)
>>>>
>>>> * Forward the file and line number to make it easier to track down
>>>> failures
>>>>
>>>> * Declare the helper function for nice __printf() warnings about mismatched
>>>> format strings even when KUnit is not enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Example output from kunit_fail_current_test("message"):
>>>> [15:19:34] [FAILED] example_simple_test
>>>> [15:19:34] # example_simple_test: initializing
>>>> [15:19:34] # example_simple_test: lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:24: message
>>>> [15:19:34] not ok 1 - example_simple_test
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@google.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>>>
>>
>> Please run checkpatch on your patches in the future. I am seeing
>> a few checkpatch readability type improvements that can be made.
>>
>> Please make changes and send v2 with Brendan's Reviewed-by.
>
> Thanks for the catch.
> checkpatch.pl --strict should now be happy (aside from complaining
> about line wrapping)
>
> v5 here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210402212131.835276-1-dlatypov@google.com
>
> Note: Brendan didn't give an explicit Reviewed-by on the second patch,
> not sure if that was intentional.
>

No worries. I applied this one as well. I was able to fix it with just
checkpatch --fix option.

All set now.

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-02 23:45    [W:0.059 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site