* [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
@ 2025-02-14 16:19 Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-14 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest,
Tamir Duberstein
This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others
being bitmap and printf), the rest having been converted to KUnit. In
addition to the enclosed patch, please consider this an RFC on the
removal of the "Test Module" kselftest machinery.
I tested this using:
$ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 scanf
Failure output before this series:
[ 383.100048] test_scanf: vsscanf("1574 9 64ca 935b 7 142d ff58 0", "%4hx %1hx %4hx %4hx %1hx %4hx %4hx %1hx", ...) expected 2472240330 got 1690959881
[ 383.102843] test_scanf: vsscanf("f12:2:d:2:c166:1:36b:1906", "%3hx:%1hx:%1hx:%1hx:%4hx:%1hx:%3hx:%4hx", ...) expected 131085 got 851970
[ 383.105376] test_scanf: vsscanf("4,b2fe,3,593,6,0,3bde,0", "%1hx,%4hx,%1hx,%3hx,%1hx,%1hx,%4hx,%1hx", ...) expected 93519875 got 242430
[ 383.105659] test_scanf: vsscanf("6-1-2-1-d9e6-f-93e-e567", "%1hx-%1hx-%1hx-%1hx-%4hx-%1hx-%3hx-%4hx", ...) expected 65538 got 131073
[ 383.106127] test_scanf: vsscanf("72d6/35/e88d/1/0/6c8c/7/1", "%4hx/%2hx/%4hx/%1hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%1hx", ...) expected 125069 got 3901554741
[ 383.106235] test_scanf: vsscanf("c9bea1b8122113e9a168df573", "%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%3hx", ...) expected 571539457 got 106936
...
[ 383.106398] test_scanf: failed 6 out of 2545 tests
Failure output after this series:
# numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94
lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("0 1e 3e43 31f0 0 0 5797 9c70", "%1hx %2hx %4hx %4hx %1hx %1hx %4hx %4hx", ...) expected 837828163 got 1044578334
not ok 1 " "
# numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94
lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("dc2:1c:0:3531:2621:5172:1:7", "%3hx:%2hx:%1hx:%4hx:%4hx:%4hx:%1hx:%1hx", ...) expected 892403712 got 28
not ok 2 ":"
# numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94
lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("e083,8f6e,b,70ca,1,1,aab1,10e4", "%4hx,%4hx,%1hx,%4hx,%1hx,%1hx,%4hx,%4hx", ...) expected 1892286475 got 757614
not ok 3 ","
# numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94
lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("2e72-8435-1-2fc-7cbd-c2f1-7158-2b41", "%4hx-%4hx-%1hx-%3hx-%4hx-%4hx-%4hx-%4hx", ...) expected 50069505 got 99381
not ok 4 "-"
# numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94
lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("403/0/17/1/11e7/1/1fe8/34ba", "%3hx/%1hx/%2hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%4hx/%4hx", ...) expected 65559 got 1507328
not ok 5 "/"
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v8:
- Expand "scanf: remove redundant debug logs" commit message. (Andy
Shevchenko)
- Add patch "implicate test line in failure messages".
- Rebase on linux-next, move scanf_kunit.c into lib/tests/.
- Link to v7: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250211-scanf-kunit-convert-v7-0-c057f0a3d9d8@gmail.com
Changes in v7:
- Remove redundant debug logs. (Petr Mladek)
- Drop Petr's Acked-by.
- Use original test assertions as KUNIT_*_EQ_MSG produces hard-to-parse
messages. The new failure output is:
- Link to v6: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250210-scanf-kunit-convert-v6-0-4d583d07f92d@gmail.com
Changes in v6:
- s/at boot/at runtime/ for consistency with the printf series.
- Go back to kmalloc. (Geert Uytterhoeven)
- Link to v5: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250210-scanf-kunit-convert-v5-0-8e64f3a7de99@gmail.com
Changes in v5:
- Remove extraneous trailing newlines from failure messages.
- Replace `pr_debug` with `kunit_printk`.
- Use static char arrays instead of kmalloc.
- Drop KUnit boilerplate from CONFIG_SCANF_KUNIT_TEST help text.
- Drop arch changes.
- Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250207-scanf-kunit-convert-v4-0-a23e2afaede8@gmail.com
Changes in v4:
- Bake `test` into various macros, greatly reducing diff noise.
- Revert control flow changes.
- Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250204-scanf-kunit-convert-v3-0-386d7c3ee714@gmail.com
Changes in v3:
- Reduce diff noise in lib/Makefile. (Petr Mladek)
- Split `scanf_test` into a few test cases. New output:
: =================== scanf (10 subtests) ====================
: [PASSED] numbers_simple
: ====================== numbers_list =======================
: [PASSED] delim=" "
: [PASSED] delim=":"
: [PASSED] delim=","
: [PASSED] delim="-"
: [PASSED] delim="/"
: ================== [PASSED] numbers_list ===================
: ============ numbers_list_field_width_typemax =============
: [PASSED] delim=" "
: [PASSED] delim=":"
: [PASSED] delim=","
: [PASSED] delim="-"
: [PASSED] delim="/"
: ======== [PASSED] numbers_list_field_width_typemax =========
: =========== numbers_list_field_width_val_width ============
: [PASSED] delim=" "
: [PASSED] delim=":"
: [PASSED] delim=","
: [PASSED] delim="-"
: [PASSED] delim="/"
: ======= [PASSED] numbers_list_field_width_val_width ========
: [PASSED] numbers_slice
: [PASSED] numbers_prefix_overflow
: [PASSED] test_simple_strtoull
: [PASSED] test_simple_strtoll
: [PASSED] test_simple_strtoul
: [PASSED] test_simple_strtol
: ====================== [PASSED] scanf ======================
: ============================================================
: Testing complete. Ran 22 tests: passed: 22
: Elapsed time: 5.517s total, 0.001s configuring, 5.440s building, 0.067s running
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250203-scanf-kunit-convert-v2-1-277a618d804e@gmail.com
Changes in v2:
- Rename lib/{test_scanf.c => scanf_kunit.c}. (Andy Shevchenko)
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250131-scanf-kunit-convert-v1-1-0976524f0eba@gmail.com
---
Tamir Duberstein (4):
scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
scanf: remove redundant debug logs
scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
scanf: break kunit into test cases
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 +-
lib/Makefile | 1 -
lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
lib/{test_scanf.c => tests/scanf_kunit.c} | 299 +++++++++++++++---------------
tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/lib/config | 1 -
tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh | 4 -
8 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209
change-id: 20250131-scanf-kunit-convert-f70dc33bb34c
Best regards,
--
Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
2025-02-14 16:19 [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-02-14 16:19 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 8:55 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 9:56 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs Tamir Duberstein
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-14 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest,
Tamir Duberstein
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
top level of the test.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
@@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
+typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
-static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
-_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
- int n_args, ...)
+static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
+_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
+ const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
{
va_list ap, ap_copy;
int ret;
@@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ _test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
va_end(ap_copy);
if (ret != n_args) {
- pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d\n",
- string, fmt, ret, n_args);
+ pr_warn("%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d\n",
+ file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args);
goto fail;
}
- ret = (*fn)(check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
+ ret = (*fn)(file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
if (ret)
goto fail;
@@ -67,88 +67,88 @@ do { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
if (got != *expect) { \
- pr_warn("vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
- str, fmt, *expect, got); \
+ pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
+ file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
return 1; \
} \
} \
return 0; \
} while (0)
-static int __init check_ull(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ull(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%llu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ll(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ll(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ulong(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ulong(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_long(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_long(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%ld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_uint(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_uint(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%u", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_int(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_int(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%d", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ushort(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_ushort(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_short(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_short(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hd", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_uchar(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_uchar(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned char *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hhu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_char(const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const signed char *pval = check_data;
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ do { \
T result = ~expect_val; /* should be overwritten */ \
\
snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect_val); \
- _test(fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \
+ _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \
} while (0)
#define simple_numbers_loop(T, gen_fmt, scan_fmt, fn) \
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len
#define test_array_8(fn, check_data, string, fmt, arr) \
do { \
BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
- _test(fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \
+ _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \
&(arr)[0], &(arr)[1], &(arr)[2], &(arr)[3], \
&(arr)[4], &(arr)[5], &(arr)[6], &(arr)[7]); \
} while (0)
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ do { \
const T expect[2] = { expect0, expect1 }; \
T result[2] = { (T)~expect[0], (T)~expect[1] }; \
\
- _test(fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \
+ _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \
} while (0)
/*
--
2.48.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs
2025-02-14 16:19 [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-02-14 16:19 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 8:59 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases Tamir Duberstein
3 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-14 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest,
Tamir Duberstein
Remove `pr_debug` calls which emit information already contained in
`pr_warn` calls that occur on test failure. This reduces unhelpful test
verbosity.
Note that a `pr_debug` removed from `_check_numbers_template` appears to
have been the only guard against silent false positives, but in fact
this condition is handled in `_test`; it is only possible for `n_args`
to be `0` in `_check_numbers_template` if the test explicitly expects it
*and* `vsscanf` returns `0`, matching the expectation.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
lib/test_scanf.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
index d1664e0d0138..efdde6f498d9 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
@@ -62,10 +62,8 @@ _test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, con
#define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \
do { \
- pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
- pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
if (got != *expect) { \
pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
@@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \
total_tests++; \
len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
- pr_debug(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \
if (got != (expect)) { \
fail = true; \
pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
--
2.48.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
2025-02-14 16:19 [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-02-14 16:20 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-15 18:50 ` kernel test robot
2025-03-05 12:46 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases Tamir Duberstein
3 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-14 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest,
Tamir Duberstein
Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
test case.
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 +-
lib/Makefile | 1 -
lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
lib/{test_scanf.c => tests/scanf_kunit.c} | 251 +++++++++++++++---------------
tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/lib/config | 1 -
tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh | 4 -
8 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 92fc0eca7061..8dc8f597596d 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -25466,8 +25466,8 @@ R: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
S: Maintained
T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/printk/linux.git
F: Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst
+F: lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
F: lib/test_printf.c
-F: lib/test_scanf.c
F: lib/vsprintf.c
VT1211 HARDWARE MONITOR DRIVER
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 85b95d645b10..bf3b8999a2ac 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -2436,6 +2436,15 @@ config ASYNC_RAID6_TEST
config TEST_HEXDUMP
tristate "Test functions located in the hexdump module at runtime"
+config SCANF_KUNIT_TEST
+ tristate "KUnit test scanf() family of functions at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ depends on KUNIT
+ default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ help
+ Enable this option to test the scanf functions at runtime.
+
+ If unsure, say N.
+
config STRING_KUNIT_TEST
tristate "KUnit test string functions at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
depends on KUNIT
@@ -2452,9 +2461,6 @@ config TEST_KSTRTOX
config TEST_PRINTF
tristate "Test printf() family of functions at runtime"
-config TEST_SCANF
- tristate "Test scanf() family of functions at runtime"
-
config TEST_BITMAP
tristate "Test bitmap_*() family of functions at runtime"
help
diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
index 961aef91d493..459ca67825f4 100644
--- a/lib/Makefile
+++ b/lib/Makefile
@@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) += test_dynamic_debug.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SCANF) += test_scanf.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP) += test_bitmap.o
ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG)$(CONFIG_KASAN),yy)
diff --git a/lib/tests/Makefile b/lib/tests/Makefile
index 8961fbcff7a4..db9b685f2d88 100644
--- a/lib/tests/Makefile
+++ b/lib/tests/Makefile
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MEMCPY_KUNIT_TEST) += memcpy_kunit.o
CFLAGS_overflow_kunit.o = $(call cc-disable-warning, tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare)
obj-$(CONFIG_OVERFLOW_KUNIT_TEST) += overflow_kunit.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SCANF_KUNIT_TEST) += scanf_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SIPHASH_KUNIT_TEST) += siphash_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SLUB_KUNIT_TEST) += slub_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
similarity index 79%
rename from lib/test_scanf.c
rename to lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
index efdde6f498d9..3bbad9ebe437 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
@@ -3,10 +3,8 @@
* Test cases for sscanf facility.
*/
-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
-
+#include <kunit/test.h>
#include <linux/bitops.h>
-#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/overflow.h>
@@ -15,48 +13,35 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/string.h>
-#include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h"
-
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
-KSTM_MODULE_GLOBALS();
-static char *test_buffer __initdata;
-static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
-static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
+static char *test_buffer;
+static char *fmt_buffer;
+static struct rnd_state rnd_state;
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
+typedef void (*check_fn)(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
+ const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
+ va_list ap);
-static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
-_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
+static void __scanf(7, 0)
+_test(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
{
va_list ap, ap_copy;
int ret;
- total_tests++;
-
va_start(ap, n_args);
va_copy(ap_copy, ap);
ret = vsscanf(string, fmt, ap_copy);
va_end(ap_copy);
if (ret != n_args) {
- pr_warn("%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d\n",
- file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args);
- goto fail;
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) returned %d expected %d",
+ file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args);
+ } else {
+ (*fn)(test, file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
- ret = (*fn)(file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
- if (ret)
- goto fail;
-
- va_end(ap);
-
- return;
-
-fail:
- failed_tests++;
va_end(ap);
}
@@ -65,88 +50,92 @@ do { \
for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
if (got != *expect) { \
- pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
- file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
- return 1; \
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, \
+ "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
+ file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
+ return; \
} \
} \
- return 0; \
} while (0)
-static int __init check_ull(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_ull(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%llu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ll(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ulong(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_ulong(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
+ const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
+ va_list ap)
{
const unsigned long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_long(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_long(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%ld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_uint(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_uint(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const unsigned int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%u", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_int(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_int(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%d", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_ushort(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_ushort(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
+ const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
+ va_list ap)
{
const unsigned short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_short(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_short(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
+ const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
+ va_list ap)
{
const short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hd", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_uchar(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_uchar(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
+ const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
+ va_list ap)
{
const unsigned char *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hhu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap);
}
-static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
+static void check_char(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
+ const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap)
{
const signed char *pval = check_data;
@@ -154,7 +143,7 @@ static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check
}
/* Selection of interesting numbers to test, copied from test-kstrtox.c */
-static const unsigned long long numbers[] __initconst = {
+static const unsigned long long numbers[] = {
0x0ULL,
0x1ULL,
0x7fULL,
@@ -194,7 +183,7 @@ do { \
T result = ~expect_val; /* should be overwritten */ \
\
snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect_val); \
- _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \
+ _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result);\
} while (0)
#define simple_numbers_loop(T, gen_fmt, scan_fmt, fn) \
@@ -212,7 +201,7 @@ do { \
} \
} while (0)
-static void __init numbers_simple(void)
+static void numbers_simple(struct kunit *test)
{
simple_numbers_loop(unsigned long long, "%llu", "llu", check_ull);
simple_numbers_loop(long long, "%lld", "lld", check_ll);
@@ -265,14 +254,14 @@ static void __init numbers_simple(void)
* the raw prandom*() functions (Not mathematically rigorous!!).
* Variabilty of length and value is more important than perfect randomness.
*/
-static u32 __init next_test_random(u32 max_bits)
+static u32 next_test_random(u32 max_bits)
{
u32 n_bits = hweight32(prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state)) % (max_bits + 1);
return prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state) & GENMASK(n_bits, 0);
}
-static unsigned long long __init next_test_random_ull(void)
+static unsigned long long next_test_random_ull(void)
{
u32 rand1 = prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state);
u32 n_bits = (hweight32(rand1) * 3) % 64;
@@ -309,7 +298,7 @@ do { \
* updating buf_pos and returning the number of characters appended.
* On error buf_pos is not changed and return value is 0.
*/
-static int __init __printf(4, 5)
+static int __printf(4, 5)
append_fmt(char *buf, int *buf_pos, int buf_len, const char *val_fmt, ...)
{
va_list ap;
@@ -331,7 +320,7 @@ append_fmt(char *buf, int *buf_pos, int buf_len, const char *val_fmt, ...)
* Convenience function to append the field delimiter string
* to both the value string and format string buffers.
*/
-static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len,
+static void append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len,
char *fmt_buf, int *fmt_buf_pos, int fmt_buf_len,
const char *delim_str)
{
@@ -342,7 +331,7 @@ static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len
#define test_array_8(fn, check_data, string, fmt, arr) \
do { \
BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
- _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \
+ _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \
&(arr)[0], &(arr)[1], &(arr)[2], &(arr)[3], \
&(arr)[4], &(arr)[5], &(arr)[6], &(arr)[7]); \
} while (0)
@@ -396,7 +385,7 @@ do { \
test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
} while (0)
-static void __init numbers_list_ll(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull);
numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll);
@@ -406,7 +395,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_ll(const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_l(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong);
numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long);
@@ -416,7 +405,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_l(const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_d(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint);
numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int);
@@ -426,7 +415,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_d(const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_h(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort);
numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short);
@@ -436,7 +425,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_h(const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(short, "0x%hx", delim, "hi", check_short);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_hh(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_8(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, "hhu", check_uchar);
numbers_list_8(signed char, "%hhd", delim, "hhd", check_char);
@@ -446,16 +435,16 @@ static void __init numbers_list_hh(const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(signed char, "0x%hhx", delim, "hhi", check_char);
}
-static void __init numbers_list(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
- numbers_list_ll(delim);
- numbers_list_l(delim);
- numbers_list_d(delim);
- numbers_list_h(delim);
- numbers_list_hh(delim);
+ numbers_list_ll(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_l(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_d(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_h(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_hh(test, delim);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_ll(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, 20, "llu", check_ull);
numbers_list_fix_width(long long, "%lld", delim, 20, "lld", check_ll);
@@ -465,7 +454,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_ll(const char *delim)
numbers_list_fix_width(long long, "0x%llx", delim, 18, "lli", check_ll);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_l(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, 20, "lu", check_ulong);
@@ -484,7 +473,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_l(const char *delim)
#endif
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_d(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned int, "%u", delim, 10, "u", check_uint);
numbers_list_fix_width(int, "%d", delim, 11, "d", check_int);
@@ -494,7 +483,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_d(const char *delim)
numbers_list_fix_width(int, "0x%x", delim, 10, "i", check_int);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_h(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, 5, "hu", check_ushort);
numbers_list_fix_width(short, "%hd", delim, 6, "hd", check_short);
@@ -504,7 +493,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_h(const char *delim)
numbers_list_fix_width(short, "0x%hx", delim, 6, "hi", check_short);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_hh(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, 3, "hhu", check_uchar);
numbers_list_fix_width(signed char, "%hhd", delim, 4, "hhd", check_char);
@@ -518,16 +507,16 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_hh(const char *delim)
* List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the
* maximum possible digits for the given type and base.
*/
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_typemax(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
- numbers_list_field_width_ll(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_l(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_d(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_h(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_hh(delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_ll(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_l(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_d(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_h(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_hh(test, delim);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_val_width(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull);
numbers_list_val_width(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll);
@@ -537,7 +526,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(const char *delim)
numbers_list_val_width(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_l(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_val_width(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong);
numbers_list_val_width(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long);
@@ -547,7 +536,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_l(const char *delim)
numbers_list_val_width(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_d(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_val_width(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint);
numbers_list_val_width(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int);
@@ -557,7 +546,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_d(const char *delim)
numbers_list_val_width(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_h(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_val_width(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort);
numbers_list_val_width(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short);
@@ -567,7 +556,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_h(const char *delim)
numbers_list_val_width(short, "0x%hx", delim, "hi", check_short);
}
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
numbers_list_val_width(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, "hhu", check_uchar);
numbers_list_val_width(signed char, "%hhd", delim, "hhd", check_char);
@@ -581,13 +570,13 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(const char *delim)
* List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the
* exact length of the corresponding value digits in the string being scanned.
*/
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_width(const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
{
- numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_val_l(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_val_d(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_val_h(delim);
- numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_l(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_d(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_h(test, delim);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(test, delim);
}
/*
@@ -596,9 +585,9 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_width(const char *delim)
* of digits. For example the hex values c0,3,bf01,303 would have a
* string representation of "c03bf01303" and extracted with "%2x%1x%4x%3x".
*/
-static void __init numbers_slice(void)
+static void numbers_slice(struct kunit *test)
{
- numbers_list_field_width_val_width("");
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, "");
}
#define test_number_prefix(T, str, scan_fmt, expect0, expect1, n_args, fn) \
@@ -606,14 +595,14 @@ do { \
const T expect[2] = { expect0, expect1 }; \
T result[2] = { (T)~expect[0], (T)~expect[1] }; \
\
- _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \
+ _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]);\
} while (0)
/*
* Number prefix is >= field width.
* Expected behaviour is derived from testing userland sscanf.
*/
-static void __init numbers_prefix_overflow(void)
+static void numbers_prefix_overflow(struct kunit *test)
{
/*
* Negative decimal with a field of width 1, should quit scanning
@@ -682,24 +671,17 @@ do { \
T got; \
char *endp; \
int len; \
- bool fail = false; \
\
- total_tests++; \
len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
if (got != (expect)) { \
- fail = true; \
- pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
- test_buffer, base, got, expect); \
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, #fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt, \
+ test_buffer, base, got, expect); \
} else if (endp != test_buffer + len) { \
- fail = true; \
- pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) startp=0x%px got endp=0x%px expected 0x%px\n", \
- test_buffer, base, test_buffer, \
- test_buffer + len, endp); \
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, #fn "(\"%s\", %d) startp=0x%px got endp=0x%px expected 0x%px", \
+ test_buffer, base, test_buffer, \
+ test_buffer + len, endp); \
} \
- \
- if (fail) \
- failed_tests++; \
} while (0)
#define test_simple_strtoxx(T, fn, gen_fmt, base) \
@@ -715,7 +697,7 @@ do { \
} \
} while (0)
-static void __init test_simple_strtoull(void)
+static void test_simple_strtoull(struct kunit *test)
{
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "%llu", 10);
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "%llu", 0);
@@ -724,7 +706,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoull(void)
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "0x%llx", 0);
}
-static void __init test_simple_strtoll(void)
+static void test_simple_strtoll(struct kunit *test)
{
test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "%lld", 10);
test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "%lld", 0);
@@ -733,7 +715,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoll(void)
test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "0x%llx", 0);
}
-static void __init test_simple_strtoul(void)
+static void test_simple_strtoul(struct kunit *test)
{
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "%lu", 10);
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "%lu", 0);
@@ -742,7 +724,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoul(void)
test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "0x%lx", 0);
}
-static void __init test_simple_strtol(void)
+static void test_simple_strtol(struct kunit *test)
{
test_simple_strtoxx(long, simple_strtol, "%ld", 10);
test_simple_strtoxx(long, simple_strtol, "%ld", 0);
@@ -752,35 +734,35 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtol(void)
}
/* Selection of common delimiters/separators between numbers in a string. */
-static const char * const number_delimiters[] __initconst = {
+static const char * const number_delimiters[] = {
" ", ":", ",", "-", "/",
};
-static void __init test_numbers(void)
+static void test_numbers(struct kunit *test)
{
int i;
/* String containing only one number. */
- numbers_simple();
+ numbers_simple(test);
/* String with multiple numbers separated by delimiter. */
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(number_delimiters); i++) {
- numbers_list(number_delimiters[i]);
+ numbers_list(test, number_delimiters[i]);
/* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */
- numbers_list_field_width_typemax(number_delimiters[i]);
+ numbers_list_field_width_typemax(test, number_delimiters[i]);
/* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */
- numbers_list_field_width_val_width(number_delimiters[i]);
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, number_delimiters[i]);
}
/* Slice continuous sequence of digits using field widths. */
- numbers_slice();
+ numbers_slice(test);
- numbers_prefix_overflow();
+ numbers_prefix_overflow(test);
}
-static void __init selftest(void)
+static void scanf_test(struct kunit *test)
{
test_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!test_buffer)
@@ -794,18 +776,29 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
prandom_seed_state(&rnd_state, 3141592653589793238ULL);
- test_numbers();
+ test_numbers(test);
- test_simple_strtoull();
- test_simple_strtoll();
- test_simple_strtoul();
- test_simple_strtol();
+ test_simple_strtoull(test);
+ test_simple_strtoll(test);
+ test_simple_strtoul(test);
+ test_simple_strtol(test);
kfree(fmt_buffer);
kfree(test_buffer);
}
-KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_scanf);
+static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(scanf_test),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite scanf_test_suite = {
+ .name = "scanf",
+ .test_cases = scanf_test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suite(scanf_test_suite);
+
MODULE_AUTHOR("Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Test cases for sscanf facility");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile
index c52fe3ad8e98..4afda556151f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile
@@ -4,5 +4,5 @@
# No binaries, but make sure arg-less "make" doesn't trigger "run_tests"
all:
-TEST_PROGS := printf.sh bitmap.sh prime_numbers.sh scanf.sh
+TEST_PROGS := printf.sh bitmap.sh prime_numbers.sh
include ../lib.mk
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config
index 306a3d4dca98..1d17fa85de8f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF=m
-CONFIG_TEST_SCANF=m
CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP=m
CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS=m
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh
deleted file mode 100755
index b59b8ba561c3..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
-# Tests the scanf infrastructure using test_scanf kernel module.
-$(dirname $0)/../kselftest/module.sh "scanf" test_scanf
--
2.48.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-02-14 16:19 [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-02-14 16:20 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:01 ` Petr Mladek
3 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-14 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest,
Tamir Duberstein
Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This
gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644
--- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
@@ -4,14 +4,10 @@
*/
#include <kunit/test.h>
-#include <linux/bitops.h>
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/overflow.h>
-#include <linux/printk.h>
#include <linux/prandom.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
-#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
@@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \
for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
if (got != *expect) { \
- KUNIT_FAIL(test, \
- "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
- file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
- return; \
+ KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \
+ "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
+ file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
} \
} \
} while (0)
@@ -435,8 +430,11 @@ static void numbers_list_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
numbers_list_8(signed char, "0x%hhx", delim, "hhi", check_char);
}
-static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test)
{
+ const char * const *param = test->param_value;
+ const char *delim = *param;
+
numbers_list_ll(test, delim);
numbers_list_l(test, delim);
numbers_list_d(test, delim);
@@ -507,8 +505,11 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
* List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the
* maximum possible digits for the given type and base.
*/
-static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test)
{
+ const char * const *param = test->param_value;
+ const char *delim = *param;
+
numbers_list_field_width_ll(test, delim);
numbers_list_field_width_l(test, delim);
numbers_list_field_width_d(test, delim);
@@ -570,8 +571,11 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *deli
* List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the
* exact length of the corresponding value digits in the string being scanned.
*/
-static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *delim)
+static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test)
{
+ const char * const *param = test->param_value;
+ const char *delim = *param;
+
numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(test, delim);
numbers_list_field_width_val_l(test, delim);
numbers_list_field_width_val_d(test, delim);
@@ -587,7 +591,12 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *d
*/
static void numbers_slice(struct kunit *test)
{
- numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, "");
+ const char *delim = "";
+
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_EQ(test, test->param_value, NULL);
+ test->param_value = &delim;
+
+ numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test);
}
#define test_number_prefix(T, str, scan_fmt, expect0, expect1, n_args, fn) \
@@ -738,62 +747,60 @@ static const char * const number_delimiters[] = {
" ", ":", ",", "-", "/",
};
-static void test_numbers(struct kunit *test)
+static void number_delimiter_param_desc(const char * const *param,
+ char *desc)
{
- int i;
+ snprintf(desc, KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE, "\"%s\"", *param);
+}
- /* String containing only one number. */
- numbers_simple(test);
+KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(number_delimiters, number_delimiters, number_delimiter_param_desc);
+static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(numbers_simple),
/* String with multiple numbers separated by delimiter. */
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(number_delimiters); i++) {
- numbers_list(test, number_delimiters[i]);
-
- /* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */
- numbers_list_field_width_typemax(test, number_delimiters[i]);
-
- /* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */
- numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, number_delimiters[i]);
- }
-
+ KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list, number_delimiters_gen_params),
+ /* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */
+ KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list_field_width_typemax, number_delimiters_gen_params),
+ /* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */
+ KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list_field_width_val_width, number_delimiters_gen_params),
/* Slice continuous sequence of digits using field widths. */
- numbers_slice(test);
+ KUNIT_CASE(numbers_slice),
+ KUNIT_CASE(numbers_prefix_overflow),
- numbers_prefix_overflow(test);
-}
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoull),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoll),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoul),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtol),
+ {}
+};
-static void scanf_test(struct kunit *test)
+static int scanf_suite_init(struct kunit_suite *suite)
{
test_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!test_buffer)
- return;
+ return -ENOMEM;
fmt_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!fmt_buffer) {
kfree(test_buffer);
- return;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
prandom_seed_state(&rnd_state, 3141592653589793238ULL);
- test_numbers(test);
-
- test_simple_strtoull(test);
- test_simple_strtoll(test);
- test_simple_strtoul(test);
- test_simple_strtol(test);
+ return 0;
+}
+static void scanf_suite_exit(struct kunit_suite *suite)
+{
kfree(fmt_buffer);
kfree(test_buffer);
}
-static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = {
- KUNIT_CASE(scanf_test),
- {}
-};
-
static struct kunit_suite scanf_test_suite = {
.name = "scanf",
+ .suite_init = scanf_suite_init,
+ .suite_exit = scanf_suite_exit,
.test_cases = scanf_test_cases,
};
--
2.48.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-02-15 18:50 ` kernel test robot
[not found] ` <CAJ-ks9kkigKG=Nf_mZrA5CA=SUV2sSyY51_rLef42T+ZxCmk1Q@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-05 12:46 ` Petr Mladek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2025-02-15 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein, David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt,
Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky,
Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, Tamir Duberstein
Hi Tamir,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Tamir-Duberstein/scanf-implicate-test-line-in-failure-messages/20250215-002302
base: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250214-scanf-kunit-convert-v8-3-5ea50f95f83c%40gmail.com
patch subject: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
config: sh-randconfig-002-20250216 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from <command-line>:
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_ll':
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:390:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
390 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:391:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
391 | numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:392:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
392 | numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lli", check_ll);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:393:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
393 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llx", delim, "llx", check_ull);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:394:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
394 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "0x%llx", delim, "llx", check_ull);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:395:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
395 | numbers_list_8(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_l':
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:400:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
400 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:401:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
401 | numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:402:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
402 | numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "li", check_long);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:403:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
403 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lx", delim, "lx", check_ulong);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:404:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
404 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "0x%lx", delim, "lx", check_ulong);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:405:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
405 | numbers_list_8(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_d':
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:410:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
410 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:411:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
411 | numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:412:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
412 | numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "i", check_int);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:413:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
413 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%x", delim, "x", check_uint);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:414:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
414 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "0x%x", delim, "x", check_uint);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:415:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
415 | numbers_list_8(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_h':
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:420:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
420 | numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:421:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
421 | numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:422:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
422 | numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hi", check_short);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
522 | if (!(condition)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array'
11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE'
333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8'
356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:423:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8'
423 | numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hx", delim, "hx", check_ushort);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
vim +197 include/linux/compiler.h
230fa253df6352a Christian Borntraeger 2014-11-25 193
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 194 #ifdef __CHECKER__
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 195 #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) (0)
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 196 #else /* __CHECKER__ */
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 @197 #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 198 #endif /* __CHECKER__ */
cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 199
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
[not found] ` <CAJ-ks9kkigKG=Nf_mZrA5CA=SUV2sSyY51_rLef42T+ZxCmk1Q@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2025-02-16 20:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-02-17 14:29 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 9:47 ` Petr Mladek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-02-16 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: kernel test robot, David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan,
oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 02:52:22PM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 1:51 PM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> I am not able to reproduce these warnings with clang 19.1.7. They also
> don't obviously make sense to me.
Please, when reply, remove boielrplate stuff!
I have just wasted a couple of minutes to understand what's going on in the
message that is 2700 lines of text as the reply to the bot message which was
~700 lines.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
2025-02-16 20:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-02-17 14:29 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-02-17 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: kernel test robot, David Gow, Petr Mladek, Steven Rostedt,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan,
oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 3:22 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Please, when reply, remove boielrplate stuff!
> I have just wasted a couple of minutes to understand what's going on in the
> message that is 2700 lines of text as the reply to the bot message which was
> ~700 lines.
My apologies. I forgot what a mess a mobile email client makes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 8:55 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 9:56 ` Petr Mladek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> top level of the test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
I like it. It helps a lot to locate the failing test.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 8:59 ` Petr Mladek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:59, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> Remove `pr_debug` calls which emit information already contained in
> `pr_warn` calls that occur on test failure. This reduces unhelpful test
> verbosity.
>
> Note that a `pr_debug` removed from `_check_numbers_template` appears to
> have been the only guard against silent false positives, but in fact
> this condition is handled in `_test`; it is only possible for `n_args`
> to be `0` in `_check_numbers_template` if the test explicitly expects it
> *and* `vsscanf` returns `0`, matching the expectation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
I am fine with the change. The debug messages have been obsoleted by
the 1st patch. The file:line information is more convenient to find
the failing test.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
[not found] ` <CAJ-ks9kkigKG=Nf_mZrA5CA=SUV2sSyY51_rLef42T+ZxCmk1Q@mail.gmail.com>
2025-02-16 20:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-03-05 9:47 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 11:36 ` Tamir Duberstein
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: kernel test robot, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan,
oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Sat 2025-02-15 14:52:22, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 1:51 PM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tamir,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209]
> >
> > url:
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Tamir-Duberstein/scanf-implicate-test-line-in-failure-messages/20250215-002302
> > base: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209
> > patch link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250214-scanf-kunit-convert-v8-3-5ea50f95f83c%40gmail.com
> > patch subject: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
> > config: sh-randconfig-002-20250216 (
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/config
> )
> > compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/reproduce
> )
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new
> version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > | Closes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > In file included from <command-line>:
> > lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_ll':
> > >> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll'
> might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute
> [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
>
> I am not able to reproduce these warnings with clang 19.1.7. They also
> don't obviously make sense to me.
I have reproduced the problem with gcc:
$> gcc --version
gcc (SUSE Linux) 14.2.1 20250220 [revision 9ffecde121af883b60bbe60d00425036bc873048]
$> make W=1 lib/test_scanf.ko
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
DESCEND objtool
INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
CC [M] lib/test_scanf.o
In file included from <command-line>:
lib/test_scanf.c: In function ‘numbers_list_ll’:
./include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function ‘numbers_list_ll’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_scanf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
| ^
[...]
It seems that it is a regression introduced by the first
patch of this patch set. And the fix is:
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
index d1664e0d0138..e65b10c3dc11 100644
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c
+++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
-static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
+static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
{
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 8:55 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2025-03-05 9:56 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 11:35 ` Tamir Duberstein
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> top level of the test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> ---
> lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
> --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
> static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
> static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
>
> -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
> - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
>
> -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
> -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
> - int n_args, ...)
> +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
This should be:
static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list.
The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed
via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).
Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com
kernel test robot, see
https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages
2025-03-05 9:56 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2025-03-05 11:35 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-05 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Mladek
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:56 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
> > top level of the test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> > index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> > @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata;
> > static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
> > static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
> >
> > -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
> > - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> > +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> > + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> >
> > -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init
> > -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
> > - int n_args, ...)
> > +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
>
> This should be:
>
> static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
>
> The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list.
> The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed
> via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).
>
> Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com
> kernel test robot, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
Thanks for explaining!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
2025-03-05 9:47 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2025-03-05 11:36 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-05 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Mladek
Cc: kernel test robot, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko,
Rasmus Villemoes, Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan,
oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:47 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat 2025-02-15 14:52:22, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 1:51 PM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tamir,
> > >
> > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> > >
> > > [auto build test WARNING on 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209]
> > >
> > > url:
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Tamir-Duberstein/scanf-implicate-test-line-in-failure-messages/20250215-002302
> > > base: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209
> > > patch link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250214-scanf-kunit-convert-v8-3-5ea50f95f83c%40gmail.com
> > > patch subject: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
> > > config: sh-randconfig-002-20250216 (
> > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/config
> > )
> > > compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
> > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (
> > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/reproduce
> > )
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new
> > version of
> > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > | Closes:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/
> > >
> > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > >
> > > In file included from <command-line>:
> > > lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_ll':
> > > >> include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll'
> > might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute
> > [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
> >
> > I am not able to reproduce these warnings with clang 19.1.7. They also
> > don't obviously make sense to me.
>
> I have reproduced the problem with gcc:
>
> $> gcc --version
> gcc (SUSE Linux) 14.2.1 20250220 [revision 9ffecde121af883b60bbe60d00425036bc873048]
>
> $> make W=1 lib/test_scanf.ko
> CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> DESCEND objtool
> INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
> CC [M] lib/test_scanf.o
> In file included from <command-line>:
> lib/test_scanf.c: In function ‘numbers_list_ll’:
> ./include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function ‘numbers_list_ll’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_scanf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
> 197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
> | ^
> [...]
>
> It seems that it is a regression introduced by the first
> patch of this patch set. And the fix is:
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> index d1664e0d0138..e65b10c3dc11 100644
> --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
> typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
>
> -static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
> +static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
> _test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
> const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
> {
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
Thanks for the review! I'll respin later today unless you let me know otherwise.
Cheers.
Tamir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-15 18:50 ` kernel test robot
@ 2025-03-05 12:46 ` Petr Mladek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:00, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
>
> In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
> refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
> test case.
>
> --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> @@ -15,48 +13,35 @@
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/string.h>
>
> -#include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h"
> -
> #define BUF_SIZE 1024
>
> -KSTM_MODULE_GLOBALS();
> -static char *test_buffer __initdata;
> -static char *fmt_buffer __initdata;
> -static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
> +static char *test_buffer;
> +static char *fmt_buffer;
> +static struct rnd_state rnd_state;
>
> -typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
> - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
> +typedef void (*check_fn)(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
> + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,
> + va_list ap);
>
> -static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
> -_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
> - const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
> +static void __scanf(7, 0)
This should be:
static void __scanf(7, 9)
Otherwise, the compilation with W=1 produces the warning reported by
the lkp@intel.com kernel test robot, see
https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
> +_test(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data,
> + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
> {
> va_list ap, ap_copy;
> int ret;
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
With the above fix:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 15:01 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 15:25 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-05 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This
> gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> ---
> lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644
> --- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> @@ -4,14 +4,10 @@
> */
>
> #include <kunit/test.h>
> -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> -#include <linux/printk.h>
> #include <linux/prandom.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> -#include <linux/string.h>
> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
>
> #define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
<include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
are people working in this optimization and they might need
to revert this change.
> @@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \
> for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
> typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
> if (got != *expect) { \
> - KUNIT_FAIL(test, \
> - "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
> - file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
> - return; \
> + KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \
> + "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
> + file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
I am just curious. Is there any particular reason why
KUNIT_FAIL() is replaced with KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT()?
Did the move of some tests into KUNIT_CASE() increased the number of
reported errors?
Why is _ABORT() variant used in _check_numbers_template() and not in _test()?
I do not have strong opinion. The change just looks a bit ad-hoc and
inconsistent.
> } \
> } \
> } while (0)
Otherwise, the change looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I suggest to wait at least one or two days with the respin. Other
reviewers might want to add their own opinion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:01 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2025-03-05 15:25 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:55 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-05 15:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-05 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Mladek
Cc: David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This
> > gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> > index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644
> > --- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> > +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c
> > @@ -4,14 +4,10 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> >
> > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
>
> It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
>
> Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
>
> I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> have different opinion.
>
> I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> are people working in this optimization and they might need
> to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
> > @@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \
> > for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
> > typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
> > if (got != *expect) { \
> > - KUNIT_FAIL(test, \
> > - "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
> > - file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
> > - return; \
> > + KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \
> > + "%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \
> > + file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
>
> I am just curious. Is there any particular reason why
> KUNIT_FAIL() is replaced with KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT()?
>
> Did the move of some tests into KUNIT_CASE() increased the number of
> reported errors?
>
> Why is _ABORT() variant used in _check_numbers_template() and not in _test()?
>
> I do not have strong opinion. The change just looks a bit ad-hoc and
> inconsistent.
>
>
> > } \
> > } \
> > } while (0)
Honestly I don't remember. The effect is definitely to kill tests
earlier in the case of failure, but you're right to point out the
inconsistency with _test. The original code had the same behavior in
both cases, so I will restore that.
>
> Otherwise, the change looks good to me.
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
>
> PS: I suggest to wait at least one or two days with the respin. Other
> reviewers might want to add their own opinion.
Will do. Thanks for the reviews.
Tamir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:01 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 15:25 ` Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 15:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-03-05 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Mladek
Cc: Tamir Duberstein, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 04:01:48PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
> > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> >
> > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
>
> It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
+1.
> Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
Header inclusions is a pain point to me in the kernel. Esp. misuse of kernel.h
or other headers to behave like a "proxy". If no-one even asked for a cleanup
it's always good to follow IWYU principle as you mentioned below.
> I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> have different opinion.
>
> I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> are people working in this optimization and they might need
> to revert this change.
+1.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:25 ` Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 15:55 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-05 15:57 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-03-05 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: Petr Mladek, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
> > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > >
> > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> >
> > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> >
> > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> >
> > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > have different opinion.
> >
> > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > to revert this change.
>
> Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
example.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:55 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-03-05 15:57 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 19:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-06 9:38 ` Petr Mladek
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-05 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Petr Mladek, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > >
> > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > >
> > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > >
> > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> > >
> > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > > have different opinion.
> > >
> > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > to revert this change.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
>
> It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> example.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used
only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which
implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:57 ` Tamir Duberstein
@ 2025-03-05 19:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-05 20:09 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-06 9:38 ` Petr Mladek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-03-05 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: Petr Mladek, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
> > > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > > >
> > > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > > >
> > > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> > > >
> > > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > > > have different opinion.
> > > >
> > > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > > to revert this change.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
> >
> > It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> > you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> > example.
>
> I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
> I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used
> only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
>
> However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which
> implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate
patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch
we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see
such a patch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 19:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-03-05 20:09 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-05 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Petr Mladek, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > > > >
> > > > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > > > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > > > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > > > > have different opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > > > to revert this change.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
> > >
> > > It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> > > you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> > > example.
> >
> > I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
> > I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used
> > only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
> >
> > However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which
> > implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
>
> I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate
> patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
>
> But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch
> we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see
> such a patch.
Thanks for clarifying. Nobody suggested that cleanup. I will remove
printk.h in the 3rd patch as Petr suggested and the remaining headers
in a separate final patch for the next respin.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-05 15:57 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 19:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-03-06 9:38 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-06 10:56 ` Tamir Duberstein
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2025-03-06 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Duberstein
Cc: Andy Shevchenko, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Wed 2025-03-05 10:57:47, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > > >
> > > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > > >
> > > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > > to revert this change.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
> >
> > It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> > you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> > example.
> >
> I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
> I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused;
I believe that the headers were added for a reason. And this patchset
keeps most of the code. This is why the change look suspicious.
And I see in the patched lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:
+ hweight32(), BITS_PER_TYPE(), BITS_PER_LONG which looks like bitops stuff
+ is_signed_type(), type_min(), type_max() from overflow.h
So, I would keep bitops.h and overflow.h.
The printk() calls were obviously removed in the 3rd patch so printk.h
include should be removed there.
I do not see any obvious reason for kernel.h, so I would remove it
in a separate patch.
> string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
Makes sense. But please do this in a separate patch with this
explanation. It might be done together with the kernel.h removal.
Best Regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases
2025-03-06 9:38 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2025-03-06 10:56 ` Tamir Duberstein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tamir Duberstein @ 2025-03-06 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Mladek
Cc: Andy Shevchenko, David Gow, Steven Rostedt, Rasmus Villemoes,
Sergey Senozhatsky, Andrew Morton, Shuah Khan, Geert Uytterhoeven,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:38 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 2025-03-05 10:57:47, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > > > >
> > > > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > > > to revert this change.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
> > >
> > > It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> > > you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
> > I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused;
>
> I believe that the headers were added for a reason. And this patchset
> keeps most of the code. This is why the change look suspicious.
> And I see in the patched lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:
>
> + hweight32(), BITS_PER_TYPE(), BITS_PER_LONG which looks like bitops stuff
> + is_signed_type(), type_min(), type_max() from overflow.h
>
> So, I would keep bitops.h and overflow.h.
Thanks for checking.
> The printk() calls were obviously removed in the 3rd patch so printk.h
> include should be removed there.
>
> I do not see any obvious reason for kernel.h, so I would remove it
> in a separate patch.
>
> > string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
>
> Makes sense. But please do this in a separate patch with this
> explanation. It might be done together with the kernel.h removal.
Will do.
Thanks again.
Tamir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-03-06 10:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-02-14 16:19 [PATCH v8 0/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] scanf: implicate test line in failure messages Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 8:55 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 9:56 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 11:35 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-14 16:19 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] scanf: remove redundant debug logs Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 8:59 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-15 18:50 ` kernel test robot
[not found] ` <CAJ-ks9kkigKG=Nf_mZrA5CA=SUV2sSyY51_rLef42T+ZxCmk1Q@mail.gmail.com>
2025-02-16 20:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-02-17 14:29 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 9:47 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 11:36 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 12:46 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 16:20 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:01 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-05 15:25 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:55 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-05 15:57 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 19:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-05 20:09 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-06 9:38 ` Petr Mladek
2025-03-06 10:56 ` Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-05 15:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).