Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: support failure from dynamic analysis tools | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:44:50 -0600 |
| |
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
| |