lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 09/18] kunit: test: add support for test abort
From
Date
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 21:57:55)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12)
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644
> > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit {
> > > */
> > > bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */
> > > spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */
> > > + /*
> > > + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test
> > > + * case.
> > > + */
> > > + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */
> > > /*
> > > * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with
> > > * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must
> > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit {
> > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test)
> > > +{
> > > + spin_lock(&test->lock);
> > > + test->death_test = death_test;
> > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock);
> > > +}
> >
> > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any
> > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool
> > member, success.
>
> No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true
> and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a
> comment?

Yes. How does it transition from true to false again?

Either way, having a spinlock around a read/write API doesn't make sense
because it just makes sure that two writes don't overlap, but otherwise
does nothing to keep things synchronized. For example a set to true
after a set to false when the two calls to set true or false aren't
synchronized means they can happen in any order. So I don't see how it
needs a spinlock. The lock needs to be one level higher.

>
> > > +
> > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> > >
> > > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h
[...]
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail.
> > > + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions.
> > > + *
> > > + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute
> > > + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by
> > > + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try
> > > + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called.
> > > + *
> > > + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality
> > > + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing
> > > + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying
> > > + * how test cases are written and presented.
> > > + *
> > > + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call
> > > + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is
> > > + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece
> > > + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the
> > > + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be
> > > + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue.
> > > + */
> > > +struct kunit_try_catch {
> > > + /* private: internal use only. */
> > > + struct kunit *test;
> > > + struct completion *try_completion;
> > > + int try_result;
> > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try;
> > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch;
> >
> > Can these other variables be documented in the kernel doc? And should
> > context be marked as 'public'?
>
> Sure, I can document them.
>
> But I don't think context should be public; it should only be accessed
> by kunit_try_catch_* functions. context should only be populated by
> *_init, and will be passed into *try and *catch when they are called
> internally.

Ok. Then I guess just document them all but keep them all marked as
private.

>
> > > + */
> > > +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch);
> > > +
> > > +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */
> > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> > > index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644
> > > --- a/kunit/test.c
> > > +++ b/kunit/test.c
> > > @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
> > > kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test)
> > > +{
> > > + kunit_set_death_test(test, true);
> > > +
> > > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Throw could not abort from test.
> > > + *
> > > + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is
> > > + * marked __noreturn.
> > > + */
> > > + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n");
> >
> > Should this just be a BUG_ON? It's supposedly impossible.
>
> It should be impossible; it will only reach this line if there is a
> bug in kunit_try_catch_throw. The reason I didn't use BUG_ON was
> because I previously got yelled at for having BUG_ON in this code
> path.
>
> Nevertheless, I think BUG_ON is more correct, so if you will stand by
> it, then that's what I will do.

Yeah BUG_ON is appropriate here and self documenting so please use it.

>
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered
> > > + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe
> > > + * state.
> > > + */
> > > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an
> > > + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of
> > > + * the test case is in.
> > > + */
> > > + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case);
> > > + kunit_set_failure(test);
> >
> > Like was done here.
>
> Sorry, like what?

Just saying this has braces for the if-else.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-13 07:57    [W:0.068 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site