11 Feb
2025
11 Feb
'25
3:54 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:47:03AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:40 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:36AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
- Use original test assertions as KUNIT_*_EQ_MSG produces hard-to-parse messages. The new failure output is:
It would be good if you put into cover letter, or even in the respectful patch the example of the error report for the old code and new code that it will be clear how it changes.
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:92 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:92 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:92 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:92 vsscanf("403/0/17/1/11e7/1/1fe8/34ba", "%3hx/%1hx/%2hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%4hx/%4hx", ...) expected 65559 got 1507328 not ok 5 "/" # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: pass:0 fail:5 skip:0 total:5 not ok 4 numbers_list_field_width_val_width # numbers_slice: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:92 vsscanf("3c87eac0f4afa1f9231da52", "%1hx%4hx%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%4hx%1hx", ...) expected 1257942031 got 2886715518Makes sense. As you can see the error report for the new code is included here. I'll add the old code's error report if I have to respin v8.
At a bare minimum. can you add in the reply to this email?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko