lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] test_printf: test printf family at runtime
    Date
    On Mon, Sep 28 2015, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

    > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 19:41 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
    >> This adds a simple module for testing the kernel's printf
    >> facilities. Previously, some %p extensions have caused a wrong return
    >> value in case the entire output didn't fit and/or been unusable in
    >> kasprintf(). This should help catch such issues. Also, it should help
    >> ensure that changes to the formatting algorithms don't break
    >> anything.
    >>
    >> I'm not sure if we have a struct dentry or struct file lying around
    >> at
    >> boot time or if we can fake one, but most %p extensions should be
    >> testable, as should the ordinary number and string formatting.
    >>
    >> The nature of vararg functions means we can't use a more conventional
    >> table-driven approach.
    >>
    >> For now, this is mostly a skeleton; contributions are very
    >> welcome. Some tests are/will be slightly annoying to write, since the
    >> expected output depends on stuff like CONFIG_*, sizeof(long), runtime
    >> values etc.
    >
    > Few comments below.
    >
    >> +
    >> +#define test(expect, fmt, ...) \
    >> + __test(expect, strlen(expect), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    >
    > Would be __test_m[em] / __test_s[tr] to distinguish them by name?

    Erh, no. The 'mem' version will only be used in a very few cases, and I
    really want the simple name "test" for the common case.

    > And might be inline function?

    That'd make the vararg handling more cumbersome.

    >> +static void __init
    >> +test_basic(void)
    >> +{
    >> + test("", "");
    >> + test("100%", "100%%");
    >> + test("xxx%yyy", "xxx%cyyy", '%');
    >> + __test("xxx\0yyy", 7, "xxx%cyyy", '\0');
    >
    > And such pieces will be look better
    >
    > __test_str("xxx%yyy", "xxx%cyyy", '%');
    > __test_mem("xxx\0yyy", 7, "xxx%cyyy", '\0');

    I don't agree.

    >> +
    >> +static void __init
    >> +netdev_features(void)
    >> +{
    >> +}
    >> +
    >> +
    >
    > Maybe commentary delimiter here and above where you have double empty
    > line.

    And say what? I can avoid double empty lines if they bother you.

    >> +
    >> + return 0;
    >
    > Do we need this module in a memory?

    I guess not. At first I thought it didn't really matter since all
    functions and data are __init, but I suppose a little metadata would
    stick around if loading is "successful". Will fix.

    >> +
    >> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>");
    >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
    >
    > GPL or ?..

    Honestly, I don't really care. Would you like BSD/GPL or what? I just
    copied from the majority of MODULE_LICENSE() instances.

    Rasmus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-09-28 23:21    [W:3.151 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site