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 15:47:36 -0600 |
| |
On 4/2/21 3:44 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > 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. >
Clarification. Applied 1/2 - I will wait for Brendan's ack on 2/2
thanks, -- Shuah
| |