This is one of just 3 remaining "Test Module" kselftests (the others being bitmap and printf), the rest having been converted to KUnit. In addition to the enclosed patch, please consider this an RFC on the removal of the "Test Module" kselftest machinery.
I tested this using:
$ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=1 scanf
Failure output before this series: [ 383.100048] test_scanf: vsscanf("1574 9 64ca 935b 7 142d ff58 0", "%4hx %1hx %4hx %4hx %1hx %4hx %4hx %1hx", ...) expected 2472240330 got 1690959881 [ 383.102843] test_scanf: vsscanf("f12:2:d:2:c166:1:36b:1906", "%3hx:%1hx:%1hx:%1hx:%4hx:%1hx:%3hx:%4hx", ...) expected 131085 got 851970 [ 383.105376] test_scanf: vsscanf("4,b2fe,3,593,6,0,3bde,0", "%1hx,%4hx,%1hx,%3hx,%1hx,%1hx,%4hx,%1hx", ...) expected 93519875 got 242430 [ 383.105659] test_scanf: vsscanf("6-1-2-1-d9e6-f-93e-e567", "%1hx-%1hx-%1hx-%1hx-%4hx-%1hx-%3hx-%4hx", ...) expected 65538 got 131073 [ 383.106127] test_scanf: vsscanf("72d6/35/e88d/1/0/6c8c/7/1", "%4hx/%2hx/%4hx/%1hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%1hx", ...) expected 125069 got 3901554741 [ 383.106235] test_scanf: vsscanf("c9bea1b8122113e9a168df573", "%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%4hx%1hx%4hx%3hx", ...) expected 571539457 got 106936 ... [ 383.106398] test_scanf: failed 6 out of 2545 tests
Failure output after this series: # numbers_list_field_width_val_width: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/scanf_kunit.c:94 lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: 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:94 lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: 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:94 lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: 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:94 lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: 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:94 lib/scanf_kunit.c:555: vsscanf("403/0/17/1/11e7/1/1fe8/34ba", "%3hx/%1hx/%2hx/%1hx/%4hx/%1hx/%4hx/%4hx", ...) expected 65559 got 1507328 not ok 5 "/"
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com --- Changes in v8: - Expand "scanf: remove redundant debug logs" commit message. (Andy Shevchenko) - Add patch "implicate test line in failure messages". - Rebase on linux-next, move scanf_kunit.c into lib/tests/. - Link to v7: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250211-scanf-kunit-convert-v7-0-c057f0a3d9d8@gma...
Changes in v7: - Remove redundant debug logs. (Petr Mladek) - Drop Petr's Acked-by. - Use original test assertions as KUNIT_*_EQ_MSG produces hard-to-parse messages. The new failure output is: - Link to v6: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250210-scanf-kunit-convert-v6-0-4d583d07f92d@gma...
Changes in v6: - s/at boot/at runtime/ for consistency with the printf series. - Go back to kmalloc. (Geert Uytterhoeven) - Link to v5: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250210-scanf-kunit-convert-v5-0-8e64f3a7de99@gma...
Changes in v5: - Remove extraneous trailing newlines from failure messages. - Replace `pr_debug` with `kunit_printk`. - Use static char arrays instead of kmalloc. - Drop KUnit boilerplate from CONFIG_SCANF_KUNIT_TEST help text. - Drop arch changes. - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250207-scanf-kunit-convert-v4-0-a23e2afaede8@gma...
Changes in v4: - Bake `test` into various macros, greatly reducing diff noise. - Revert control flow changes. - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250204-scanf-kunit-convert-v3-0-386d7c3ee714@gma...
Changes in v3: - Reduce diff noise in lib/Makefile. (Petr Mladek) - Split `scanf_test` into a few test cases. New output: : =================== scanf (10 subtests) ==================== : [PASSED] numbers_simple : ====================== numbers_list ======================= : [PASSED] delim=" " : [PASSED] delim=":" : [PASSED] delim="," : [PASSED] delim="-" : [PASSED] delim="/" : ================== [PASSED] numbers_list =================== : ============ numbers_list_field_width_typemax ============= : [PASSED] delim=" " : [PASSED] delim=":" : [PASSED] delim="," : [PASSED] delim="-" : [PASSED] delim="/" : ======== [PASSED] numbers_list_field_width_typemax ========= : =========== numbers_list_field_width_val_width ============ : [PASSED] delim=" " : [PASSED] delim=":" : [PASSED] delim="," : [PASSED] delim="-" : [PASSED] delim="/" : ======= [PASSED] numbers_list_field_width_val_width ======== : [PASSED] numbers_slice : [PASSED] numbers_prefix_overflow : [PASSED] test_simple_strtoull : [PASSED] test_simple_strtoll : [PASSED] test_simple_strtoul : [PASSED] test_simple_strtol : ====================== [PASSED] scanf ====================== : ============================================================ : Testing complete. Ran 22 tests: passed: 22 : Elapsed time: 5.517s total, 0.001s configuring, 5.440s building, 0.067s running - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250203-scanf-kunit-convert-v2-1-277a618d804e@gma...
Changes in v2: - Rename lib/{test_scanf.c => scanf_kunit.c}. (Andy Shevchenko) - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250131-scanf-kunit-convert-v1-1-0976524f0eba@gma...
--- Tamir Duberstein (4): scanf: implicate test line in failure messages scanf: remove redundant debug logs scanf: convert self-test to KUnit scanf: break kunit into test cases
MAINTAINERS | 2 +- lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 +- lib/Makefile | 1 - lib/tests/Makefile | 1 + lib/{test_scanf.c => tests/scanf_kunit.c} | 299 +++++++++++++++--------------- tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/lib/config | 1 - tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh | 4 - 8 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209 change-id: 20250131-scanf-kunit-convert-f70dc33bb34c
Best regards,
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the top level of the test.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com --- lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644 --- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata; static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap); +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);
-static void __scanf(4, 6) __init -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, - int n_args, ...) +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init +_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, + const char *fmt, int n_args, ...) { va_list ap, ap_copy; int ret; @@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ _test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, va_end(ap_copy);
if (ret != n_args) { - pr_warn("vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) returned %d expected %d\n", - string, fmt, ret, n_args); + pr_warn("%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) returned %d expected %d\n", + file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args); goto fail; }
- ret = (*fn)(check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap); + ret = (*fn)(file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap); if (ret) goto fail;
@@ -67,88 +67,88 @@ do { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \ if (got != *expect) { \ - pr_warn("vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \ - str, fmt, *expect, got); \ + pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \ + file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ return 1; \ } \ } \ return 0; \ } while (0)
-static int __init check_ull(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_ull(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%llu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ll(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_ll(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ulong(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_ulong(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_long(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_long(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%ld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_uint(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_uint(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%u", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_int(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_int(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%d", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ushort(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_ushort(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_short(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_short(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hd", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_uchar(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_uchar(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned char *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hhu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_char(const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const signed char *pval = check_data;
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ do { \ T result = ~expect_val; /* should be overwritten */ \ \ snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect_val); \ - _test(fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \ + _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \ } while (0)
#define simple_numbers_loop(T, gen_fmt, scan_fmt, fn) \ @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len #define test_array_8(fn, check_data, string, fmt, arr) \ do { \ BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ - _test(fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \ + _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \ &(arr)[0], &(arr)[1], &(arr)[2], &(arr)[3], \ &(arr)[4], &(arr)[5], &(arr)[6], &(arr)[7]); \ } while (0) @@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ do { \ const T expect[2] = { expect0, expect1 }; \ T result[2] = { (T)~expect[0], (T)~expect[1] }; \ \ - _test(fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \ + _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \ } while (0)
/*
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the top level of the test.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
I like it. It helps a lot to locate the failing test.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com Tested-by: Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com
Best Regards, Petr
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the top level of the test.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644 --- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata; static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);+typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);-static void __scanf(4, 6) __init -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
- int n_args, ...)
+static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
This should be:
static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list. The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).
Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
Best Regards, Petr
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:56 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the top level of the test.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644 --- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata; static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata;
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string,
const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);+typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);-static void __scanf(4, 6) __init -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt,
int n_args, ...)+static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
This should be:
static void __scanf(6, 8) __init
The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list. The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed via the variable list of parameters, aka (...).
Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@intel.com kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
Best Regards, Petr
Thanks for explaining!
Remove `pr_debug` calls which emit information already contained in `pr_warn` calls that occur on test failure. This reduces unhelpful test verbosity.
Note that a `pr_debug` removed from `_check_numbers_template` appears to have been the only guard against silent false positives, but in fact this condition is handled in `_test`; it is only possible for `n_args` to be `0` in `_check_numbers_template` if the test explicitly expects it *and* `vsscanf` returns `0`, matching the expectation.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com --- lib/test_scanf.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c index d1664e0d0138..efdde6f498d9 100644 --- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c @@ -62,10 +62,8 @@ _test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, con
#define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \ do { \ - pr_debug(""%s", "%s" ->\n", str, fmt); \ for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ - pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \ if (got != *expect) { \ pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \ file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ @@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \ total_tests++; \ len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \ got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \ - pr_debug(#fn "("%s", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \ if (got != (expect)) { \ fail = true; \ pr_warn(#fn "("%s", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:59, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Remove `pr_debug` calls which emit information already contained in `pr_warn` calls that occur on test failure. This reduces unhelpful test verbosity.
Note that a `pr_debug` removed from `_check_numbers_template` appears to have been the only guard against silent false positives, but in fact this condition is handled in `_test`; it is only possible for `n_args` to be `0` in `_check_numbers_template` if the test explicitly expects it *and* `vsscanf` returns `0`, matching the expectation.
Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
I am fine with the change. The debug messages have been obsoleted by the 1st patch. The file:line information is more convenient to find the failing test.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com
Best Regards, Petr
Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big test case.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 +- lib/Makefile | 1 - lib/tests/Makefile | 1 + lib/{test_scanf.c => tests/scanf_kunit.c} | 251 +++++++++++++++--------------- tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/lib/config | 1 - tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh | 4 - 8 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 92fc0eca7061..8dc8f597596d 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -25466,8 +25466,8 @@ R: Sergey Senozhatsky senozhatsky@chromium.org S: Maintained T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/printk/linux.git F: Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst +F: lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c F: lib/test_printf.c -F: lib/test_scanf.c F: lib/vsprintf.c
VT1211 HARDWARE MONITOR DRIVER diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 85b95d645b10..bf3b8999a2ac 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2436,6 +2436,15 @@ config ASYNC_RAID6_TEST config TEST_HEXDUMP tristate "Test functions located in the hexdump module at runtime"
+config SCANF_KUNIT_TEST + tristate "KUnit test scanf() family of functions at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS + depends on KUNIT + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS + help + Enable this option to test the scanf functions at runtime. + + If unsure, say N. + config STRING_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit test string functions at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT @@ -2452,9 +2461,6 @@ config TEST_KSTRTOX config TEST_PRINTF tristate "Test printf() family of functions at runtime"
-config TEST_SCANF - tristate "Test scanf() family of functions at runtime" - config TEST_BITMAP tristate "Test bitmap_*() family of functions at runtime" help diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 961aef91d493..459ca67825f4 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) += test_dynamic_debug.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SCANF) += test_scanf.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP) += test_bitmap.o ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG)$(CONFIG_KASAN),yy) diff --git a/lib/tests/Makefile b/lib/tests/Makefile index 8961fbcff7a4..db9b685f2d88 100644 --- a/lib/tests/Makefile +++ b/lib/tests/Makefile @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o obj-$(CONFIG_MEMCPY_KUNIT_TEST) += memcpy_kunit.o CFLAGS_overflow_kunit.o = $(call cc-disable-warning, tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare) obj-$(CONFIG_OVERFLOW_KUNIT_TEST) += overflow_kunit.o +obj-$(CONFIG_SCANF_KUNIT_TEST) += scanf_kunit.o obj-$(CONFIG_SIPHASH_KUNIT_TEST) += siphash_kunit.o obj-$(CONFIG_SLUB_KUNIT_TEST) += slub_kunit.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c similarity index 79% rename from lib/test_scanf.c rename to lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c index efdde6f498d9..3bbad9ebe437 100644 --- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c @@ -3,10 +3,8 @@ * Test cases for sscanf facility. */
-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt - +#include <kunit/test.h> #include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/overflow.h> @@ -15,48 +13,35 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/string.h>
-#include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h" - #define BUF_SIZE 1024
-KSTM_MODULE_GLOBALS(); -static char *test_buffer __initdata; -static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; -static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; +static char *test_buffer; +static char *fmt_buffer; +static struct rnd_state rnd_state;
-typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap); +typedef void (*check_fn)(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, + va_list ap);
-static void __scanf(6, 0) __init -_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, - const char *fmt, int n_args, ...) +static void __scanf(7, 0) +_test(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, ...) { va_list ap, ap_copy; int ret;
- total_tests++; - va_start(ap, n_args); va_copy(ap_copy, ap); ret = vsscanf(string, fmt, ap_copy); va_end(ap_copy);
if (ret != n_args) { - pr_warn("%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) returned %d expected %d\n", - file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args); - goto fail; + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) returned %d expected %d", + file, line, string, fmt, ret, n_args); + } else { + (*fn)(test, file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
- ret = (*fn)(file, line, check_data, string, fmt, n_args, ap); - if (ret) - goto fail; - - va_end(ap); - - return; - -fail: - failed_tests++; va_end(ap); }
@@ -65,88 +50,92 @@ do { \ for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ if (got != *expect) { \ - pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \ - file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ - return 1; \ + KUNIT_FAIL(test, \ + "%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \ + file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ + return; \ } \ } \ - return 0; \ } while (0)
-static int __init check_ull(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_ull(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%llu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ll(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const long long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ulong(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_ulong(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, + va_list ap) { const unsigned long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%lu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_long(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_long(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const long *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%ld", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_uint(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_uint(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const unsigned int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%u", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_int(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_int(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const int *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%d", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_ushort(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_ushort(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, + va_list ap) { const unsigned short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_short(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_short(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, + va_list ap) { const short *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hd", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_uchar(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_uchar(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, + const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, + va_list ap) { const unsigned char *pval = check_data;
_check_numbers_template("%hhu", pval, string, fmt, n_args, ap); }
-static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, - const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) +static void check_char(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap) { const signed char *pval = check_data;
@@ -154,7 +143,7 @@ static int __init check_char(const char *file, const int line, const void *check }
/* Selection of interesting numbers to test, copied from test-kstrtox.c */ -static const unsigned long long numbers[] __initconst = { +static const unsigned long long numbers[] = { 0x0ULL, 0x1ULL, 0x7fULL, @@ -194,7 +183,7 @@ do { \ T result = ~expect_val; /* should be overwritten */ \ \ snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect_val); \ - _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result); \ + _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect_val, test_buffer, "%" scan_fmt, 1, &result);\ } while (0)
#define simple_numbers_loop(T, gen_fmt, scan_fmt, fn) \ @@ -212,7 +201,7 @@ do { \ } \ } while (0)
-static void __init numbers_simple(void) +static void numbers_simple(struct kunit *test) { simple_numbers_loop(unsigned long long, "%llu", "llu", check_ull); simple_numbers_loop(long long, "%lld", "lld", check_ll); @@ -265,14 +254,14 @@ static void __init numbers_simple(void) * the raw prandom*() functions (Not mathematically rigorous!!). * Variabilty of length and value is more important than perfect randomness. */ -static u32 __init next_test_random(u32 max_bits) +static u32 next_test_random(u32 max_bits) { u32 n_bits = hweight32(prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state)) % (max_bits + 1);
return prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state) & GENMASK(n_bits, 0); }
-static unsigned long long __init next_test_random_ull(void) +static unsigned long long next_test_random_ull(void) { u32 rand1 = prandom_u32_state(&rnd_state); u32 n_bits = (hweight32(rand1) * 3) % 64; @@ -309,7 +298,7 @@ do { \ * updating buf_pos and returning the number of characters appended. * On error buf_pos is not changed and return value is 0. */ -static int __init __printf(4, 5) +static int __printf(4, 5) append_fmt(char *buf, int *buf_pos, int buf_len, const char *val_fmt, ...) { va_list ap; @@ -331,7 +320,7 @@ append_fmt(char *buf, int *buf_pos, int buf_len, const char *val_fmt, ...) * Convenience function to append the field delimiter string * to both the value string and format string buffers. */ -static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len, +static void append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len, char *fmt_buf, int *fmt_buf_pos, int fmt_buf_len, const char *delim_str) { @@ -342,7 +331,7 @@ static void __init append_delim(char *str_buf, int *str_buf_pos, int str_buf_len #define test_array_8(fn, check_data, string, fmt, arr) \ do { \ BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ - _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \ + _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, check_data, string, fmt, 8, \ &(arr)[0], &(arr)[1], &(arr)[2], &(arr)[3], \ &(arr)[4], &(arr)[5], &(arr)[6], &(arr)[7]); \ } while (0) @@ -396,7 +385,7 @@ do { \ test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ } while (0)
-static void __init numbers_list_ll(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull); numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll); @@ -406,7 +395,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_ll(const char *delim) numbers_list_8(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll); }
-static void __init numbers_list_l(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong); numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long); @@ -416,7 +405,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_l(const char *delim) numbers_list_8(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long); }
-static void __init numbers_list_d(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint); numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int); @@ -426,7 +415,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_d(const char *delim) numbers_list_8(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int); }
-static void __init numbers_list_h(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort); numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short); @@ -436,7 +425,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_h(const char *delim) numbers_list_8(short, "0x%hx", delim, "hi", check_short); }
-static void __init numbers_list_hh(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_8(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, "hhu", check_uchar); numbers_list_8(signed char, "%hhd", delim, "hhd", check_char); @@ -446,16 +435,16 @@ static void __init numbers_list_hh(const char *delim) numbers_list_8(signed char, "0x%hhx", delim, "hhi", check_char); }
-static void __init numbers_list(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { - numbers_list_ll(delim); - numbers_list_l(delim); - numbers_list_d(delim); - numbers_list_h(delim); - numbers_list_hh(delim); + numbers_list_ll(test, delim); + numbers_list_l(test, delim); + numbers_list_d(test, delim); + numbers_list_h(test, delim); + numbers_list_hh(test, delim); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_ll(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, 20, "llu", check_ull); numbers_list_fix_width(long long, "%lld", delim, 20, "lld", check_ll); @@ -465,7 +454,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_ll(const char *delim) numbers_list_fix_width(long long, "0x%llx", delim, 18, "lli", check_ll); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_l(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64 numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, 20, "lu", check_ulong); @@ -484,7 +473,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_l(const char *delim) #endif }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_d(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned int, "%u", delim, 10, "u", check_uint); numbers_list_fix_width(int, "%d", delim, 11, "d", check_int); @@ -494,7 +483,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_d(const char *delim) numbers_list_fix_width(int, "0x%x", delim, 10, "i", check_int); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_h(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, 5, "hu", check_ushort); numbers_list_fix_width(short, "%hd", delim, 6, "hd", check_short); @@ -504,7 +493,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_h(const char *delim) numbers_list_fix_width(short, "0x%hx", delim, 6, "hi", check_short); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_hh(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_fix_width(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, 3, "hhu", check_uchar); numbers_list_fix_width(signed char, "%hhd", delim, 4, "hhd", check_char); @@ -518,16 +507,16 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_hh(const char *delim) * List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the * maximum possible digits for the given type and base. */ -static void __init numbers_list_field_width_typemax(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { - numbers_list_field_width_ll(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_l(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_d(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_h(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_hh(delim); + numbers_list_field_width_ll(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_l(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_d(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_h(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_hh(test, delim); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_val_width(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull); numbers_list_val_width(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll); @@ -537,7 +526,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(const char *delim) numbers_list_val_width(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_l(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_l(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_val_width(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong); numbers_list_val_width(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long); @@ -547,7 +536,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_l(const char *delim) numbers_list_val_width(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_d(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_d(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_val_width(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint); numbers_list_val_width(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int); @@ -557,7 +546,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_d(const char *delim) numbers_list_val_width(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_h(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_h(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_val_width(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort); numbers_list_val_width(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short); @@ -567,7 +556,7 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_h(const char *delim) numbers_list_val_width(short, "0x%hx", delim, "hi", check_short); }
-static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { numbers_list_val_width(unsigned char, "%hhu", delim, "hhu", check_uchar); numbers_list_val_width(signed char, "%hhd", delim, "hhd", check_char); @@ -581,13 +570,13 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(const char *delim) * List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the * exact length of the corresponding value digits in the string being scanned. */ -static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_width(const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) { - numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_val_l(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_val_d(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_val_h(delim); - numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(delim); + numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_val_l(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_val_d(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_val_h(test, delim); + numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(test, delim); }
/* @@ -596,9 +585,9 @@ static void __init numbers_list_field_width_val_width(const char *delim) * of digits. For example the hex values c0,3,bf01,303 would have a * string representation of "c03bf01303" and extracted with "%2x%1x%4x%3x". */ -static void __init numbers_slice(void) +static void numbers_slice(struct kunit *test) { - numbers_list_field_width_val_width(""); + numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, ""); }
#define test_number_prefix(T, str, scan_fmt, expect0, expect1, n_args, fn) \ @@ -606,14 +595,14 @@ do { \ const T expect[2] = { expect0, expect1 }; \ T result[2] = { (T)~expect[0], (T)~expect[1] }; \ \ - _test(__FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]); \ + _test(test, __FILE__, __LINE__, fn, &expect, str, scan_fmt, n_args, &result[0], &result[1]);\ } while (0)
/* * Number prefix is >= field width. * Expected behaviour is derived from testing userland sscanf. */ -static void __init numbers_prefix_overflow(void) +static void numbers_prefix_overflow(struct kunit *test) { /* * Negative decimal with a field of width 1, should quit scanning @@ -682,24 +671,17 @@ do { \ T got; \ char *endp; \ int len; \ - bool fail = false; \ \ - total_tests++; \ len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \ got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \ if (got != (expect)) { \ - fail = true; \ - pr_warn(#fn "("%s", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \ - test_buffer, base, got, expect); \ + KUNIT_FAIL(test, #fn "("%s", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt, \ + test_buffer, base, got, expect); \ } else if (endp != test_buffer + len) { \ - fail = true; \ - pr_warn(#fn "("%s", %d) startp=0x%px got endp=0x%px expected 0x%px\n", \ - test_buffer, base, test_buffer, \ - test_buffer + len, endp); \ + KUNIT_FAIL(test, #fn "("%s", %d) startp=0x%px got endp=0x%px expected 0x%px", \ + test_buffer, base, test_buffer, \ + test_buffer + len, endp); \ } \ - \ - if (fail) \ - failed_tests++; \ } while (0)
#define test_simple_strtoxx(T, fn, gen_fmt, base) \ @@ -715,7 +697,7 @@ do { \ } \ } while (0)
-static void __init test_simple_strtoull(void) +static void test_simple_strtoull(struct kunit *test) { test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "%llu", 10); test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "%llu", 0); @@ -724,7 +706,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoull(void) test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long long, simple_strtoull, "0x%llx", 0); }
-static void __init test_simple_strtoll(void) +static void test_simple_strtoll(struct kunit *test) { test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "%lld", 10); test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "%lld", 0); @@ -733,7 +715,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoll(void) test_simple_strtoxx(long long, simple_strtoll, "0x%llx", 0); }
-static void __init test_simple_strtoul(void) +static void test_simple_strtoul(struct kunit *test) { test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "%lu", 10); test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "%lu", 0); @@ -742,7 +724,7 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtoul(void) test_simple_strtoxx(unsigned long, simple_strtoul, "0x%lx", 0); }
-static void __init test_simple_strtol(void) +static void test_simple_strtol(struct kunit *test) { test_simple_strtoxx(long, simple_strtol, "%ld", 10); test_simple_strtoxx(long, simple_strtol, "%ld", 0); @@ -752,35 +734,35 @@ static void __init test_simple_strtol(void) }
/* Selection of common delimiters/separators between numbers in a string. */ -static const char * const number_delimiters[] __initconst = { +static const char * const number_delimiters[] = { " ", ":", ",", "-", "/", };
-static void __init test_numbers(void) +static void test_numbers(struct kunit *test) { int i;
/* String containing only one number. */ - numbers_simple(); + numbers_simple(test);
/* String with multiple numbers separated by delimiter. */ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(number_delimiters); i++) { - numbers_list(number_delimiters[i]); + numbers_list(test, number_delimiters[i]);
/* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */ - numbers_list_field_width_typemax(number_delimiters[i]); + numbers_list_field_width_typemax(test, number_delimiters[i]);
/* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */ - numbers_list_field_width_val_width(number_delimiters[i]); + numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, number_delimiters[i]); }
/* Slice continuous sequence of digits using field widths. */ - numbers_slice(); + numbers_slice(test);
- numbers_prefix_overflow(); + numbers_prefix_overflow(test); }
-static void __init selftest(void) +static void scanf_test(struct kunit *test) { test_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); if (!test_buffer) @@ -794,18 +776,29 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
prandom_seed_state(&rnd_state, 3141592653589793238ULL);
- test_numbers(); + test_numbers(test);
- test_simple_strtoull(); - test_simple_strtoll(); - test_simple_strtoul(); - test_simple_strtol(); + test_simple_strtoull(test); + test_simple_strtoll(test); + test_simple_strtoul(test); + test_simple_strtol(test);
kfree(fmt_buffer); kfree(test_buffer); }
-KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_scanf); +static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(scanf_test), + {} +}; + +static struct kunit_suite scanf_test_suite = { + .name = "scanf", + .test_cases = scanf_test_cases, +}; + +kunit_test_suite(scanf_test_suite); + MODULE_AUTHOR("Richard Fitzgerald rf@opensource.cirrus.com"); MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Test cases for sscanf facility"); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile index c52fe3ad8e98..4afda556151f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/Makefile @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ # No binaries, but make sure arg-less "make" doesn't trigger "run_tests" all:
-TEST_PROGS := printf.sh bitmap.sh prime_numbers.sh scanf.sh +TEST_PROGS := printf.sh bitmap.sh prime_numbers.sh include ../lib.mk diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config index 306a3d4dca98..1d17fa85de8f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/config @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF=m -CONFIG_TEST_SCANF=m CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP=m CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS=m diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh deleted file mode 100755 index b59b8ba561c3..000000000000 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib/scanf.sh +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4 +0,0 @@ -#!/bin/sh -# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 -# Tests the scanf infrastructure using test_scanf kernel module. -$(dirname $0)/../kselftest/module.sh "scanf" test_scanf
Hi Tamir,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Tamir-Duberstein/scanf-implic... base: 7b7a883c7f4de1ee5040bd1c32aabaafde54d209 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250214-scanf-kunit-convert-v8-3-5ea50f95f83c%40g... patch subject: [PATCH v8 3/4] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit config: sh-randconfig-002-20250216 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@i...) compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250216/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@i...)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from <command-line>: lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_ll':
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:390:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 390 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llu", delim, "llu", check_ull); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:391:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 391 | numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lld", check_ll); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:392:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 392 | numbers_list_8(long long, "%lld", delim, "lli", check_ll); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:393:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 393 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "%llx", delim, "llx", check_ull); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:394:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 394 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long long, "0x%llx", delim, "llx", check_ull); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_ll' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:395:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 395 | numbers_list_8(long long, "0x%llx", delim, "lli", check_ll); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_l':
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:400:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 400 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lu", delim, "lu", check_ulong); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:401:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 401 | numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "ld", check_long); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:402:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 402 | numbers_list_8(long, "%ld", delim, "li", check_long); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:403:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 403 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "%lx", delim, "lx", check_ulong); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:404:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 404 | numbers_list_8(unsigned long, "0x%lx", delim, "lx", check_ulong); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_l' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:405:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 405 | numbers_list_8(long, "0x%lx", delim, "li", check_long); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_d':
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:410:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 410 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%u", delim, "u", check_uint); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:411:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 411 | numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "d", check_int); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:412:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 412 | numbers_list_8(int, "%d", delim, "i", check_int); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:413:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 413 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "%x", delim, "x", check_uint); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:414:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 414 | numbers_list_8(unsigned int, "0x%x", delim, "x", check_uint); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_d' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:415:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 415 | numbers_list_8(int, "0x%x", delim, "i", check_int); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c: In function 'numbers_list_h':
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:420:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 420 | numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hu", delim, "hu", check_ushort); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:421:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 421 | numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hd", check_short); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format] 197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:422:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 422 | numbers_list_8(short, "%hd", delim, "hi", check_short); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format] 197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) | ^ include/linux/compiler_types.h:522:23: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert' 522 | if (!(condition)) \ | ^~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert' 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert' 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/build_bug.h:50:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG' 50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:9: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:202:33: note: in expansion of macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG' 202 | #define __must_be_array(a) __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(!__is_array(a), \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/array_size.h:11:59: note: in expansion of macro '__must_be_array' 11 | #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:333:22: note: in expansion of macro 'ARRAY_SIZE' 333 | BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(arr) != 8); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:356:9: note: in expansion of macro 'test_array_8' 356 | test_array_8(fn, expect, test_buffer, fmt_buffer, result); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:423:9: note: in expansion of macro 'numbers_list_8' 423 | numbers_list_8(unsigned short, "%hx", delim, "hx", check_ushort); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compiler.h:197:61: warning: function 'numbers_list_h' might be a candidate for 'gnu_scanf' format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format] 197 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))
vim +197 include/linux/compiler.h
230fa253df6352a Christian Borntraeger 2014-11-25 193 cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 194 #ifdef __CHECKER__ cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 195 #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) (0) cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 196 #else /* __CHECKER__ */ cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 @197 #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);})) cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 198 #endif /* __CHECKER__ */ cb7380de9e4cbc9 Kees Cook 2025-02-05 199
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:00, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big test case.
--- a/lib/test_scanf.c +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c @@ -15,48 +13,35 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/string.h> -#include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h"
#define BUF_SIZE 1024 -KSTM_MODULE_GLOBALS(); -static char *test_buffer __initdata; -static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; -static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; +static char *test_buffer; +static char *fmt_buffer; +static struct rnd_state rnd_state; -typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data,
const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap);+typedef void (*check_fn)(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line,
const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args,va_list ap);-static void __scanf(6, 0) __init -_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string,
- const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
+static void __scanf(7, 0)
This should be:
static void __scanf(7, 9)
Otherwise, the compilation with W=1 produces the warning reported by the lkp@intel.com kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@intel.com
+_test(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data,
- const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, ...)
{ va_list ap, ap_copy; int ret;
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
With the above fix:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com Tested-by: Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com
Best Regards, Petr
Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com --- lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644 --- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c @@ -4,14 +4,10 @@ */
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
@@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \ for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ if (got != *expect) { \ - KUNIT_FAIL(test, \ - "%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \ - file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ - return; \ + KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \ + "%s:%d: vsscanf("%s", "%s", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \ + file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \ } \ } \ } while (0) @@ -435,8 +430,11 @@ static void numbers_list_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) numbers_list_8(signed char, "0x%hhx", delim, "hhi", check_char); }
-static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) +static void numbers_list(struct kunit *test) { + const char * const *param = test->param_value; + const char *delim = *param; + numbers_list_ll(test, delim); numbers_list_l(test, delim); numbers_list_d(test, delim); @@ -507,8 +505,11 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) * List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the * maximum possible digits for the given type and base. */ -static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_typemax(struct kunit *test) { + const char * const *param = test->param_value; + const char *delim = *param; + numbers_list_field_width_ll(test, delim); numbers_list_field_width_l(test, delim); numbers_list_field_width_d(test, delim); @@ -570,8 +571,11 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_val_hh(struct kunit *test, const char *deli * List of numbers separated by delim. Each field width specifier is the * exact length of the corresponding value digits in the string being scanned. */ -static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *delim) +static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test) { + const char * const *param = test->param_value; + const char *delim = *param; + numbers_list_field_width_val_ll(test, delim); numbers_list_field_width_val_l(test, delim); numbers_list_field_width_val_d(test, delim); @@ -587,7 +591,12 @@ static void numbers_list_field_width_val_width(struct kunit *test, const char *d */ static void numbers_slice(struct kunit *test) { - numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, ""); + const char *delim = ""; + + KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_EQ(test, test->param_value, NULL); + test->param_value = &delim; + + numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test); }
#define test_number_prefix(T, str, scan_fmt, expect0, expect1, n_args, fn) \ @@ -738,62 +747,60 @@ static const char * const number_delimiters[] = { " ", ":", ",", "-", "/", };
-static void test_numbers(struct kunit *test) +static void number_delimiter_param_desc(const char * const *param, + char *desc) { - int i; + snprintf(desc, KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE, ""%s"", *param); +}
- /* String containing only one number. */ - numbers_simple(test); +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(number_delimiters, number_delimiters, number_delimiter_param_desc);
+static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(numbers_simple), /* String with multiple numbers separated by delimiter. */ - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(number_delimiters); i++) { - numbers_list(test, number_delimiters[i]); - - /* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */ - numbers_list_field_width_typemax(test, number_delimiters[i]); - - /* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */ - numbers_list_field_width_val_width(test, number_delimiters[i]); - } - + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list, number_delimiters_gen_params), + /* Field width may be longer than actual field digits. */ + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list_field_width_typemax, number_delimiters_gen_params), + /* Each field width exactly length of actual field digits. */ + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(numbers_list_field_width_val_width, number_delimiters_gen_params), /* Slice continuous sequence of digits using field widths. */ - numbers_slice(test); + KUNIT_CASE(numbers_slice), + KUNIT_CASE(numbers_prefix_overflow),
- numbers_prefix_overflow(test); -} + KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoull), + KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoll), + KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtoul), + KUNIT_CASE(test_simple_strtol), + {} +};
-static void scanf_test(struct kunit *test) +static int scanf_suite_init(struct kunit_suite *suite) { test_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); if (!test_buffer) - return; + return -ENOMEM;
fmt_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); if (!fmt_buffer) { kfree(test_buffer); - return; + return -ENOMEM; }
prandom_seed_state(&rnd_state, 3141592653589793238ULL);
- test_numbers(test); - - test_simple_strtoull(test); - test_simple_strtoll(test); - test_simple_strtoul(test); - test_simple_strtol(test); + return 0; +}
+static void scanf_suite_exit(struct kunit_suite *suite) +{ kfree(fmt_buffer); kfree(test_buffer); }
-static struct kunit_case scanf_test_cases[] = { - KUNIT_CASE(scanf_test), - {} -}; - static struct kunit_suite scanf_test_suite = { .name = "scanf", + .suite_init = scanf_suite_init, + .suite_exit = scanf_suite_exit, .test_cases = scanf_test_cases, };
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644 --- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c @@ -4,14 +4,10 @@ */ #include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h> #define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
@@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \ for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ if (got != *expect) { \
KUNIT_FAIL(test, \"%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \return; \
KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \"%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
I am just curious. Is there any particular reason why KUNIT_FAIL() is replaced with KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT()?
Did the move of some tests into KUNIT_CASE() increased the number of reported errors?
Why is _ABORT() variant used in _check_numbers_template() and not in _test()?
I do not have strong opinion. The change just looks a bit ad-hoc and inconsistent.
} \} \ } while (0)
Otherwise, the change looks good to me.
Best Regards, Petr
PS: I suggest to wait at least one or two days with the respin. Other reviewers might want to add their own opinion.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Use `suite_init` and move some tests into `scanf_test_cases`. This gives us nicer output in the event of a failure.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein tamird@gmail.com
lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c index 3bbad9ebe437..fa215a7db366 100644 --- a/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c @@ -4,14 +4,10 @@ */
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
@@ -50,10 +46,9 @@ do { \ for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \ typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \ if (got != *expect) { \
KUNIT_FAIL(test, \"%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \return; \
KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT(test, \"%s:%d: vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt, \file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \I am just curious. Is there any particular reason why KUNIT_FAIL() is replaced with KUNIT_FAIL_AND_ABORT()?
Did the move of some tests into KUNIT_CASE() increased the number of reported errors?
Why is _ABORT() variant used in _check_numbers_template() and not in _test()?
I do not have strong opinion. The change just looks a bit ad-hoc and inconsistent.
} \ } \} while (0)
Honestly I don't remember. The effect is definitely to kill tests earlier in the case of failure, but you're right to point out the inconsistency with _test. The original code had the same behavior in both cases, so I will restore that.
Otherwise, the change looks good to me.
Best Regards, Petr
PS: I suggest to wait at least one or two days with the respin. Other reviewers might want to add their own opinion.
Will do. Thanks for the reviews. Tamir
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see such a patch.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see such a patch.
Thanks for clarifying. Nobody suggested that cleanup. I will remove printk.h in the 3rd patch as Petr suggested and the remaining headers in a separate final patch for the next respin.
On Wed 2025-03-05 10:57:47, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused;
I believe that the headers were added for a reason. And this patchset keeps most of the code. This is why the change look suspicious. And I see in the patched lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:
+ hweight32(), BITS_PER_TYPE(), BITS_PER_LONG which looks like bitops stuff + is_signed_type(), type_min(), type_max() from overflow.h
So, I would keep bitops.h and overflow.h.
The printk() calls were obviously removed in the 3rd patch so printk.h include should be removed there.
I do not see any obvious reason for kernel.h, so I would remove it in a separate patch.
string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
Makes sense. But please do this in a separate patch with this explanation. It might be done together with the kernel.h removal.
Best Regards, Petr
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:38 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Wed 2025-03-05 10:57:47, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused;
I believe that the headers were added for a reason. And this patchset keeps most of the code. This is why the change look suspicious. And I see in the patched lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c:
- hweight32(), BITS_PER_TYPE(), BITS_PER_LONG which looks like bitops stuff
- is_signed_type(), type_min(), type_max() from overflow.h
So, I would keep bitops.h and overflow.h.
Thanks for checking.
The printk() calls were obviously removed in the 3rd patch so printk.h include should be removed there.
I do not see any obvious reason for kernel.h, so I would remove it in a separate patch.
string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
Makes sense. But please do this in a separate patch with this explanation. It might be done together with the kernel.h removal.
Will do.
Thanks again. Tamir
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 04:01:48PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h> #define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
+1.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
Header inclusions is a pain point to me in the kernel. Esp. misuse of kernel.h or other headers to behave like a "proxy". If no-one even asked for a cleanup it's always good to follow IWYU principle as you mentioned below.
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
+1.
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andy Shevchenko -
kernel test robot -
Petr Mladek -
Tamir Duberstein