Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] lib/cpumask_kunit: log mask contents

[Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>]

On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test.  This
> > should help with finding out why a certain test fails.
> > 
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644
> > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@
> >  static cpumask_t mask_empty;
> >  static cpumask_t mask_all;
> >  
> > +#define STR_MASK(m)                    #m
> > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \
> > +       kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits,
> > cpumask_bits(mask))
> > +
> >  static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test)
> >  {
> >         KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty));
> > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit
> > *test)
> >         /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */
> >         cpu_hotplug_disable();
> >  
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask);
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask);
> > +
> >         EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online);
> >         EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present);
> >  
> > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test)
> >         cpumask_clear(&mask_empty);
> >         cpumask_setall(&mask_all);
> >  
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all);
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask);
> > +
> 
> It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional
> on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? 

I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there.

I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call 
kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return
any result.

Best,
Sander

> 
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.37.2