A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
Signed-off-by: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com --- The changes in ptrace.c were earlier a part of the following: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625122408.1439097-6-dev.jain@arm.com/ which were reviewed by Mark.
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c index e4fa507cbdd0..b51d21f78cf9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c @@ -163,10 +163,10 @@ static void test_hw_debug(pid_t child, int type, const char *type_name) static int do_child(void) { if (ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, -1, NULL, NULL)) - ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno)); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");
if (raise(SIGSTOP)) - ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno)); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
return EXIT_SUCCESS; } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c index d704511a0955..5ec9a18ec802 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static int check_gpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, uint64_t s */ for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) { if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) { - ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, sve_vl, i, gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]); errors++; @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static int check_fpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, if (!sve_vl && !(svcr & SVCR_SM_MASK)) { for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fpr_in); i++) { if (fpr_in[i] != fpr_out[i]) { - ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, i / 2, i % 2, fpr_in[i], fpr_out[i]); @@ -294,13 +294,13 @@ static int check_svcr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, int errors = 0;
if (svcr_out & SVCR_SM_MASK) { - ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %lx\n", cfg->name, svcr_out); errors++; }
if ((svcr_in & SVCR_ZA_MASK) != (svcr_out & SVCR_ZA_MASK)) { - ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, svcr_in, svcr_out); errors++; }
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is.
Will
On 8/27/24 18:03, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is.
I get a lot of warnings like these: https://www.codedump.xyz/cpp/Zs6d7saC1IRuWV2O
Will
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is.
IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which are probably a better choice here.
On 8/28/24 16:31, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx.
What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is.
IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which are probably a better choice here.
Well, then I will just send a patch fixing only the %s thing; I don't want to get lost into format specifiers right now :)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno));
ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");if (raise(SIGSTOP))
ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the %s would be better.
for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) { if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) {
ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n",
ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, sve_vl, i, gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]); errors++;
This is a different pattern of warning, it'd be easier to review if each patch only followed one pattern. There's no code overlap between the changes.
On 8/28/24 16:10, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno));
ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME");if (raise(SIGSTOP))
ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the %s would be better.
ksft_exit_fail_perror() can do that thing for us.
for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) { if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) {
ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n",
ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, sve_vl, i, gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]); errors++;This is a different pattern of warning, it'd be easier to review if each patch only followed one pattern. There's no code overlap between the changes.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:55:33AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 8/28/24 16:10, Mark Brown wrote:
ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno));
ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)");
The idea with these is to include the error code as well so adding the %s would be better.
ksft_exit_fail_perror() can do that thing for us.
Oh, sorry - I missed that it was changing to _perror() as well as removing the argument. Yes, that's fine.
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Dev Jain -
Mark Brown -
Will Deacon