From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from madrid.collaboradmins.com (madrid.collaboradmins.com [46.235.227.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7149B6BB56; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710405962; cv=none; b=GxDjYO2JI4Omj2N1HvNt+oQ/O0tQUHp7YKBK9KMLgcQeJNe26RWXUtkpU9VDvWyYokCMxRRTnceDspEXeqbLyLObfpE5hqFeznykAY/hxfVhnaV2XkFpgE+IkmJv4QeM3NenlBRC65tQuyCBt6ef0kwU1iXRF+gJbXenHtEbHmc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710405962; c=relaxed/simple; bh=almCwjmSv496A0+vWnZxh1TFaAh0w7CwD+k7Lrgi7wI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nsmzj68ireqGdSjgKvYBBQEnUyTuPr6UvJVBGt+XGn+Efv82Urm0733EWt6BpvhzvSOrkdCCUAfOUYLbI5GZUB+cfOzTQmItdzqdBhBqOKpWGjt9evGUqxMJJJvkXsgceVX+63PaxGwdYachZEgPd0MVy2Yu1ht+awlGQq2vl3M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=oDk/vc0b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="oDk/vc0b" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1710405958; bh=almCwjmSv496A0+vWnZxh1TFaAh0w7CwD+k7Lrgi7wI=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=oDk/vc0blI7okKBLO9A0oTSunqnhzePRCYgUgOmyPF8x64FWLiSeX9OrA7SiG2FiR N39hU/RnAuAXo0aq8Ea1h3KniOSz+xg+zGmwxYnWM1SWbZThkkLvnZyTIzGJ8MhcZE KreRcvBx5IPkzXqAgrbxeRBxZyRaEAZkjOmaqLJ3n7cQeCtyb5DdH9gJF83pSRtp2w maDyLVw7HKtOjJ6okijVA6ONhbSx2UUcm4229CMpq1DOamH7F82kZSUfvCm8A6WTdR 8y379o+j/9mALxEhUbaqY8WF018oB8ObMPdJH2z1/dt3W/gbQ3rE3JRZgonxmec/O8 eUdNzBgE1nesw== Received: from [10.193.1.1] (broslavsky.collaboradmins.com [68.183.210.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: usama.anjum) by madrid.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05465378105A; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:45:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <07e2e91b-7b0d-4810-a2a1-ed4654ecafb4@collabora.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:46:22 +0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum , kernel@collabora.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] selftests/mm: virtual_address_range: conform to TAP format output To: Dev Jain , Andrew Morton , Shuah Khan References: <20240202113119.2047740-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> <20240202113119.2047740-13-usama.anjum@collabora.com> <12b0aa90-3b4f-4fb0-b4df-c677f496cb09@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Muhammad Usama Anjum In-Reply-To: <12b0aa90-3b4f-4fb0-b4df-c677f496cb09@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 3/14/24 10:00 AM, Dev Jain wrote: > > On 2/2/24 17:01, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> Conform the layout, informational and status messages to TAP. No >> functional change is intended other than the layout of output messages. >> >> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum >> --- >>   .../selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c      | 44 +++++++++---------- >>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c >> index bae0ceaf95b13..7bcf8d48256a6 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c >> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ >>   #include >>   #include >>   #include >> +#include "../kselftest.h" >>     /* >>    * Maximum address range mapped with a single mmap() >> @@ -68,23 +69,15 @@ static char *hind_addr(void) >>       return (char *) (1UL << bits); >>   } >>   -static int validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) >> +static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) >>   { >>       unsigned long addr = (unsigned long) ptr; >>   -    if (high_addr) { >> -        if (addr < HIGH_ADDR_MARK) { >> -            printf("Bad address %lx\n", addr); >> -            return 1; >> -        } >> -        return 0; >> -    } >> +    if (high_addr && addr < HIGH_ADDR_MARK) >> +        ksft_exit_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr); >>   -    if (addr > HIGH_ADDR_MARK) { >> -        printf("Bad address %lx\n", addr); >> -        return 1; >> -    } >> -    return 0; >> +    if (addr > HIGH_ADDR_MARK) >> +        ksft_exit_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr); >>   } >>     static int validate_lower_address_hint(void) >> @@ -107,23 +100,29 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >>       char *hint; >>       unsigned long i, lchunks, hchunks; >>   +    ksft_print_header(); >> +    ksft_set_plan(1); >> + >>       for (i = 0; i < NR_CHUNKS_LOW; i++) { >>           ptr[i] = mmap(NULL, MAP_CHUNK_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>                       MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0); >>             if (ptr[i] == MAP_FAILED) { >> -            if (validate_lower_address_hint()) >> -                return 1; >> +            if (validate_lower_address_hint()) { >> +                ksft_test_result_skip("Memory constraint not fulfilled\n"); >> +                ksft_finished(); >> +            } > > Hi, > > When validate_lower_address_hint() returns 1, it implies that despite > filling the lower > > range, mmap succeeded. IMHO, ksft_exit_fail_msg() should be used instead, > with a > > more descriptive message indicating that the memory was unexpectedly > allocated. Can you fire up a patch for this? Otherwise I'll get back to it next week. > > > Regards > > Dev > >>               break; >>           } >>   -        if (validate_addr(ptr[i], 0)) >> -            return 1; >> +        validate_addr(ptr[i], 0); >>       } >>       lchunks = i; >>       hptr = (char **) calloc(NR_CHUNKS_HIGH, sizeof(char *)); >> -    if (hptr == NULL) >> -        return 1; >> +    if (hptr == NULL) { >> +        ksft_test_result_skip("Memory constraint not fulfilled\n"); >> +        ksft_finished(); >> +    } >>         for (i = 0; i < NR_CHUNKS_HIGH; i++) { >>           hint = hind_addr(); >> @@ -133,8 +132,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >>           if (hptr[i] == MAP_FAILED) >>               break; >>   -        if (validate_addr(hptr[i], 1)) >> -            return 1; >> +        validate_addr(hptr[i], 1); >>       } >>       hchunks = i; >>   @@ -145,5 +143,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >>           munmap(hptr[i], MAP_CHUNK_SIZE); >>         free(hptr); >> -    return 0; >> + >> +    ksft_test_result_pass("Test\n"); >> +    ksft_finished(); >>   } -- BR, Muhammad Usama Anjum