From: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@redhat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tomas Glozar <tglozar@redhat.com>
Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>,
Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] rtla/tests: Add unit test for cpu_list_iterate()
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:55:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260814135511.2207190-5-tglozar@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260814135511.2207190-1-tglozar@redhat.com>
cpu_list_iterate() was split out of parse_cpu_set() to hold shared code
between it and the newly added function get_possible_cpus().
As its semantics are more complex than parse_cpu_set() - it calls a
callback on each element of the list, with possible abort on failure,
while parse_cpu_set() cares only about the set defined by the list - it
deserves its own test.
Test the callback being called correctly as well as the return value and
early break on different combinations of comma-separated numbers and
ranges.
Signed-off-by: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@redhat.com>
---
tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/utils.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/utils.c b/tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/utils.c
index ce53cab494575..0cb5e217c56eb 100644
--- a/tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/utils.c
+++ b/tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/utils.c
@@ -34,6 +34,67 @@ START_TEST(test_strtoi)
}
END_TEST
+struct cpu_list_iterate_cb_data {
+ int index;
+ int *values;
+};
+
+static int cpu_list_iterate_callback(int cpu, void *data)
+{
+ struct cpu_list_iterate_cb_data *cb_data = data;
+
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu, cb_data->values[cb_data->index++]);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int cpu_list_iterate_callback_error(int cpu, void *data)
+{
+ struct cpu_list_iterate_cb_data *cb_data = data;
+
+ if (cpu > 10)
+ return -42;
+
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu, cb_data->values[cb_data->index++]);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+START_TEST(test_cpu_list_iterate)
+{
+ struct cpu_list_iterate_cb_data cb_data;
+ int test_data_1[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
+ int test_data_2[] = {1, 2, 10, 11, 12};
+
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+
+ cb_data.values = test_data_1;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1,2,3,4", cpu_list_iterate_callback, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1-4", cpu_list_iterate_callback, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1,2-3,4", cpu_list_iterate_callback, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1-3,4", cpu_list_iterate_callback, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1,2-4", cpu_list_iterate_callback, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1,2-4", cpu_list_iterate_callback_error, &cb_data), 4);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 4);
+ cb_data.index = 0;
+ cb_data.values = test_data_2;
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cpu_list_iterate("1,2,10-12", cpu_list_iterate_callback_error, &cb_data),
+ -42);
+ ck_assert_int_eq(cb_data.index, 3);
+}
+END_TEST
+
START_TEST(test_parse_cpu_set)
{
cpu_set_t set;
@@ -98,6 +159,7 @@ Suite *utils_suite(void)
TCase *tc = tcase_create("core");
tcase_add_test(tc, test_strtoi);
+ tcase_add_test(tc, test_cpu_list_iterate);
tcase_add_test(tc, test_parse_cpu_set);
tcase_add_test(tc, test_parse_prio);
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 13:55 [PATCH 0/5] rtla: Implement more robust nr_cpus handling Tomas Glozar
2026-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH 1/5] rtla: Replace get_nprocs_conf() with sysfs possible cpus Tomas Glozar
2026-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] rtla: Discard trace entries with cpu >= nr_cpus Tomas Glozar
2026-08-14 14:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH 3/5] rtla: Abort on nr_cpus mismatch with tracer Tomas Glozar
2026-08-14 13:55 ` Tomas Glozar [this message]
2026-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH 5/5] rtla/tests: Add unit test for get_max_cpu_from_list() Tomas Glozar
2026-08-14 14:30 ` [PATCH 0/5] rtla: Implement more robust nr_cpus handling Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260814135511.2207190-5-tglozar@redhat.com \
--to=tglozar@redhat.com \
--cc=costa.shul@redhat.com \
--cc=crwood@redhat.com \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=wander@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox