From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995EC1411E0 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:46:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729871171; cv=none; b=kuAoZs0B6VVpR1pFpD4XxpbVphYrKZvKhE3TwgQaTaCQudCf8jNlXQKcSXjx3sA9bosWuqhqrO3/vdk/oG32irioT5VBWtyRDVpJY194dCrw6BHKY3/NKk/fzYMZrAhikEOz48o2wL6T2iPC+0fBaERMoarHI7f/UBfa+aSHnJY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729871171; c=relaxed/simple; bh=E0n7nO+3obEoljEtO63VirXpJr5kVqVzmje2qTj39zw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CvqXamwZDC33J+crifZSKzsk3UM5hCFemev1KxmvcyNpIlHptL0AgGB0PuzrEIcfA7CrpuZfY2BSS27hupc9BSo5aHiXONnO9mkpgoLOlH+Fiimk+fQ1I029qFeCam8RIEVIzz7uri0PXD5rO/XZCswlZFSkANsMSbyoDhruxTQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E6C339; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (unknown [10.57.25.65]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62C283F73B; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:45:54 +0100 From: Alexandru Elisei To: Andrew Jones Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/report: Return pass/fail result from report Message-ID: References: <20241023165347.174745-2-andrew.jones@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241023165347.174745-2-andrew.jones@linux.dev> Hi Drew, On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 06:53:48PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > A nice pattern to use in order to try and maintain parsable reports, > but also output unexpected values, is > > if (!report(value == expected_value, "my test")) { > report_info("failure due to unexpected value (received %d, expected %d)", > value, expected_value); > } This looks like a good idea to me, makes the usage of report() similar to the kernel pattern of wrapping an if condition around WARN_ON(): if (WARN_ON(condition)) { do_stuff() } Plus, current users are not affected by the change so I see no reason not to have the choice. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones > --- > lib/libcflat.h | 6 +++--- > lib/report.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/libcflat.h b/lib/libcflat.h > index eec34c3f2710..b4110b9ec91b 100644 > --- a/lib/libcflat.h > +++ b/lib/libcflat.h > @@ -97,11 +97,11 @@ void report_prefix_pushf(const char *prefix_fmt, ...) > extern void report_prefix_push(const char *prefix); > extern void report_prefix_pop(void); > extern void report_prefix_popn(int n); > -extern void report(bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +extern bool report(bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > __attribute__((format(printf, 2, 3), nonnull(2))); > -extern void report_xfail(bool xfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +extern bool report_xfail(bool xfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > __attribute__((format(printf, 3, 4), nonnull(3))); > -extern void report_kfail(bool kfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +extern bool report_kfail(bool kfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > __attribute__((format(printf, 3, 4), nonnull(3))); > extern void report_abort(const char *msg_fmt, ...) > __attribute__((format(printf, 1, 2))) > diff --git a/lib/report.c b/lib/report.c > index 0756e64e6f10..43c0102c1b0e 100644 > --- a/lib/report.c > +++ b/lib/report.c > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ void report_prefix_popn(int n) > spin_unlock(&lock); > } > > -static void va_report(const char *msg_fmt, > +static bool va_report(const char *msg_fmt, > bool pass, bool xfail, bool kfail, bool skip, va_list va) > { > const char *prefix = skip ? "SKIP" > @@ -114,14 +114,20 @@ static void va_report(const char *msg_fmt, > failures++; > > spin_unlock(&lock); > + > + return pass || xfail; va_report() has 4 boolean parameters that the callers set. 'kfail' can be ignored, because all it does is control which variable serves as the accumulator for the failure. I was thinking about the 'skip' parameter - report_skip() sets pass = xfail = false, skip = true. Does it matter that va_report() returns false for report_skip()? I don't think so (report_skip() returns void), just wanting to make sure we've considered all the cases. Sorry if this looks like nitpicking. Other than that, the patch looks good to me. Thanks, Alex > } > > -void report(bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +bool report(bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > { > va_list va; > + bool ret; > + > va_start(va, msg_fmt); > - va_report(msg_fmt, pass, false, false, false, va); > + ret = va_report(msg_fmt, pass, false, false, false, va); > va_end(va); > + > + return ret; > } > > void report_pass(const char *msg_fmt, ...) > @@ -142,24 +148,32 @@ void report_fail(const char *msg_fmt, ...) > va_end(va); > } > > -void report_xfail(bool xfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +bool report_xfail(bool xfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > { > + bool ret; > + > va_list va; > va_start(va, msg_fmt); > - va_report(msg_fmt, pass, xfail, false, false, va); > + ret = va_report(msg_fmt, pass, xfail, false, false, va); > va_end(va); > + > + return ret; > } > > /* > * kfail is known failure. If kfail is true then test will succeed > * regardless of pass. > */ > -void report_kfail(bool kfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > +bool report_kfail(bool kfail, bool pass, const char *msg_fmt, ...) > { > + bool ret; > + > va_list va; > va_start(va, msg_fmt); > - va_report(msg_fmt, pass, false, kfail, false, va); > + ret = va_report(msg_fmt, pass, false, kfail, false, va); > va_end(va); > + > + return ret; > } > > void report_skip(const char *msg_fmt, ...) > -- > 2.47.0 > >