Replace the original fixed-size log buffer with a dynamically-
extending log.
Patch 1 provides the basic implementation. The following patches
add test cases, support for logging long strings, and an optimization
to the string formatting that is now more thoroughly testable.
Changes since v2:
- Fixed uninitialized string bug in get_concatenated_log().
- Moved get_concatenated_log() into first patch so that
kunit_log_newline_test() dumps the entire log on error.
- Moved kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test() to the correct point in
the chain, after the change that it depends on. Also log another
line after the long line to test that the log extends correctly.
- Added kunit_log_init_frag_test() to test kunit_init_log_frag()
instead of testing it as part of every other test.
Richard Fitzgerald (7):
kunit: Replace fixed-size log with dynamically-extending buffer
kunit: kunit-test: Add test cases for extending log buffer
kunit: Handle logging of lines longer than the fragment buffer size
kunit: kunit-test: Test logging a line that exactly fills a fragment
kunit: kunit-test: Add test cases for logging very long lines
kunit: kunit-test: Add test of logging only a newline
kunit: Don't waste first attempt to format string in
kunit_log_append()
include/kunit/test.h | 25 ++-
lib/kunit/debugfs.c | 65 ++++++--
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 339 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
lib/kunit/test.c | 127 ++++++++++++---
4 files changed, 507 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
--
2.30.2
Add kunit_log_long_line_test() to test that logging a line longer than
the buffer fragment size doesn't truncate the line.
Add extra tests to kunit_log_newline_test() for lines longer than the
buffer fragment size.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
---
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index 9ac81828d018..c079550c3afd 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
{
struct kunit_suite suite;
struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
- char *p;
+ char *p, *line;
kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
if (test->log) {
@@ -635,6 +635,33 @@ static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(p, "x12345678\n"),
"Newline not appended when fragment is full. Log is:\n'%s'", p);
+ kunit_kfree(test, p);
+
+ /* String that is much longer than a fragment */
+ line = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(frag->buf) * 6, GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, line);
+ memset(line, 'x', (sizeof(frag->buf) * 6) - 1);
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s", line);
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
+ kunit_kfree(test, p);
+
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", line);
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
+ kunit_kfree(test, p);
+
+ line[strlen(line) - 1] = '\n';
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s", line);
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
+ kunit_kfree(test, p);
} else {
kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
}
@@ -799,6 +826,60 @@ static void kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test(struct kunit *test)
#endif
}
+static void kunit_log_long_line_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
+ struct kunit_suite suite;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+ struct rnd_state rnd;
+ char *line, *p, *pn;
+ size_t line_buf_size, len;
+ int num_frags, i;
+
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
+
+ /* Create a very long string to be logged */
+ line_buf_size = sizeof(frag->buf) * 6;
+ line = kunit_kmalloc(test, line_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, line);
+ line[0] = '\0';
+
+ prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
+ len = 0;
+ do {
+ static const char fill[] =
+ "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
+
+ i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(fill) - 1);
+ len = strlcat(line, &fill[i], line_buf_size);
+ } while (len < line_buf_size);
+
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", line);
+
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
+
+ kunit_info(test, "num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n", num_frags, strlen(p));
+
+ /* Don't compare the trailing '\n' */
+ pn = strrchr(p, '\n');
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, pn);
+ *pn = '\0';
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, strlen(p), strlen(line));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, line);
+#else
+ kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
+#endif
+}
+
static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_init_frag_test),
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_test),
@@ -806,6 +887,7 @@ static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_1),
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_2),
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_long_line_test),
{}
};
--
2.30.2
Re-implement the log buffer as a list of buffer fragments that can
be extended as the size of the log info grows.
When using parameterization the test case can run many times and create
a large amount of log. It's not really practical to keep increasing the
size of the fixed buffer every time a test needs more space. And a big
fixed buffer wastes memory.
The original char *log pointer is replaced by a pointer to a list of
struct kunit_log_frag, each containing a fixed-size buffer.
kunit_log_append() now attempts to append to the last kunit_log_frag in
the list. If there isn't enough space it will append a new kunit_log_frag
to the list. This simple implementation does not attempt to completely
fill the buffer in every kunit_log_frag.
The 'log' member of kunit_suite, kunit_test_case and kunit_suite must be a
pointer because the API of kunit_log() requires that is the same type in
all three structs. As kunit.log is a pointer to the 'log' of the current
kunit_case, it must be a pointer in the other two structs.
The existing kunit-test.c log tests have been updated to build against the
new fragmented log implementation. If the test fails the new function
get_concatenated_log() constructs a single contiguous string from the
log fragments so that the whole log can be emitted in the failure
message.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
---
include/kunit/test.h | 25 +++++++++++-----
lib/kunit/debugfs.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
lib/kunit/test.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
4 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
index d33114097d0d..cb5082efc91c 100644
--- a/include/kunit/test.h
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(kunit_running);
struct kunit;
-/* Size of log associated with test. */
-#define KUNIT_LOG_SIZE 2048
+/* Size of log buffer fragments. */
+#define KUNIT_LOG_FRAGMENT_SIZE (256 - sizeof(struct list_head))
/* Maximum size of parameter description string. */
#define KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE 128
@@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ struct kunit_attributes {
enum kunit_speed speed;
};
+struct kunit_log_frag {
+ struct list_head list;
+ char buf[KUNIT_LOG_FRAGMENT_SIZE];
+};
+
+static inline void kunit_init_log_frag(struct kunit_log_frag *frag)
+{
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&frag->list);
+ frag->buf[0] = '\0';
+}
+
/**
* struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
*
@@ -132,7 +143,7 @@ struct kunit_case {
/* private: internal use only. */
enum kunit_status status;
char *module_name;
- char *log;
+ struct list_head *log;
};
static inline char *kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(enum kunit_status status)
@@ -252,7 +263,7 @@ struct kunit_suite {
/* private: internal use only */
char status_comment[KUNIT_STATUS_COMMENT_SIZE];
struct dentry *debugfs;
- char *log;
+ struct list_head *log;
int suite_init_err;
};
@@ -278,7 +289,7 @@ struct kunit {
/* private: internal use only. */
const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
- char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
+ struct list_head *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
/* param_value is the current parameter value for a test case. */
const void *param_value;
@@ -314,7 +325,7 @@ const char *kunit_filter_glob(void);
char *kunit_filter(void);
char *kunit_filter_action(void);
-void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
+void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, struct list_head *log);
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
@@ -472,7 +483,7 @@ static inline void *kunit_kcalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t n, size_t size, gfp
void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test);
-void __printf(2, 3) kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...);
+void __printf(2, 3) kunit_log_append(struct list_head *log, const char *fmt, ...);
/**
* kunit_mark_skipped() - Marks @test_or_suite as skipped
diff --git a/lib/kunit/debugfs.c b/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
index 22c5c496a68f..a26b6d31bd2f 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/debugfs.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <kunit/test.h>
@@ -37,14 +38,15 @@ void kunit_debugfs_init(void)
debugfs_rootdir = debugfs_create_dir(KUNIT_DEBUGFS_ROOT, NULL);
}
-static void debugfs_print_result(struct seq_file *seq,
- struct kunit_suite *suite,
- struct kunit_case *test_case)
+static void debugfs_print_log(struct seq_file *seq, const struct list_head *log)
{
- if (!test_case || !test_case->log)
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+
+ if (!log)
return;
- seq_printf(seq, "%s", test_case->log);
+ list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
+ seq_puts(seq, frag->buf);
}
/*
@@ -69,10 +71,9 @@ static int debugfs_print_results(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
seq_printf(seq, KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "1..%zd\n", kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite));
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
- debugfs_print_result(seq, suite, test_case);
+ debugfs_print_log(seq, test_case->log);
- if (suite->log)
- seq_printf(seq, "%s", suite->log);
+ debugfs_print_log(seq, suite->log);
seq_printf(seq, "%s %d %s\n",
kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(success), 1, suite->name);
@@ -100,14 +101,53 @@ static const struct file_operations debugfs_results_fops = {
.release = debugfs_release,
};
+static struct list_head *kunit_debugfs_alloc_log(void)
+{
+ struct list_head *log;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+
+ log = kzalloc(sizeof(*log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!log)
+ return NULL;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(log);
+
+ frag = kmalloc(sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!frag) {
+ kfree(log);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, log);
+
+ return log;
+}
+
+static void kunit_debugfs_free_log(struct list_head *log)
+{
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag, *n;
+
+ if (!log)
+ return;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(frag, n, log, list) {
+ list_del(&frag->list);
+ kfree(frag);
+ }
+
+ kfree(log);
+}
+
void kunit_debugfs_create_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
{
struct kunit_case *test_case;
/* Allocate logs before creating debugfs representation. */
- suite->log = kzalloc(KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ suite->log = kunit_debugfs_alloc_log();
+
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
- test_case->log = kzalloc(KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ test_case->log = kunit_debugfs_alloc_log();
suite->debugfs = debugfs_create_dir(suite->name, debugfs_rootdir);
@@ -121,7 +161,8 @@ void kunit_debugfs_destroy_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
struct kunit_case *test_case;
debugfs_remove_recursive(suite->debugfs);
- kfree(suite->log);
+ kunit_debugfs_free_log(suite->log);
+
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
- kfree(test_case->log);
+ kunit_debugfs_free_log(test_case->log);
}
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index 83d8e90ca7a2..a199f83bac67 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -530,12 +530,37 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_resource_test_suite = {
.test_cases = kunit_resource_test_cases,
};
+static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log)
+{
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+ size_t len = 0;
+ char *p;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
+ len += strlen(frag->buf);
+
+ len++; /* for terminating '\0' */
+ p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
+ strlcat(p, frag->buf, len);
+
+ return p;
+}
+
static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
{
struct kunit_suite suite;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
- suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "put this in log.");
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "this too.");
@@ -543,14 +568,17 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &suite, "along with this.");
#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
+ frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
- strstr(test->log, "put this in log."));
+ strstr(frag->buf, "put this in log."));
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
- strstr(test->log, "this too."));
+ strstr(frag->buf, "this too."));
+
+ frag = list_first_entry(suite.log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
- strstr(suite.log, "add to suite log."));
+ strstr(frag->buf, "add to suite log."));
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
- strstr(suite.log, "along with this."));
+ strstr(frag->buf, "along with this."));
#else
KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, test->log);
#endif
@@ -558,11 +586,15 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
{
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+
kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
if (test->log) {
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(test->log, "Add newline\n"),
- "Missing log line, full log:\n%s", test->log);
- KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(test->log, "Add newline\n\n"));
+ frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n"),
+ "Missing log line, full log:\n%s",
+ get_concatenated_log(test, test->log));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n\n"));
} else {
kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
}
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 49698a168437..dfe51bc2b387 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include <kunit/test-bug.h>
#include <kunit/attributes.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/moduleparam.h>
#include <linux/panic.h>
@@ -114,46 +115,66 @@ static void kunit_print_test_stats(struct kunit *test,
* already present.
* @log: The log to add the newline to.
*/
-static void kunit_log_newline(char *log)
+static void kunit_log_newline(struct kunit_log_frag *frag)
{
int log_len, len_left;
- log_len = strlen(log);
- len_left = KUNIT_LOG_SIZE - log_len - 1;
+ log_len = strlen(frag->buf);
+ len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - log_len - 1;
- if (log_len > 0 && log[log_len - 1] != '\n')
- strncat(log, "\n", len_left);
+ if (log_len > 0 && frag->buf[log_len - 1] != '\n')
+ strncat(frag->buf, "\n", len_left);
}
-/*
- * Append formatted message to log, size of which is limited to
- * KUNIT_LOG_SIZE bytes (including null terminating byte).
- */
-void kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...)
+static struct kunit_log_frag *kunit_log_extend(struct list_head *log)
+{
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+
+ frag = kmalloc(sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!frag)
+ return NULL;
+
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, log);
+
+ return frag;
+}
+
+/* Append formatted message to log, extending the log buffer if necessary. */
+void kunit_log_append(struct list_head *log, const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list args;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
int len, log_len, len_left;
if (!log)
return;
- log_len = strlen(log);
- len_left = KUNIT_LOG_SIZE - log_len - 1;
- if (len_left <= 0)
- return;
+ frag = list_last_entry(log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
+ log_len = strlen(frag->buf);
+ len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - log_len - 1;
/* Evaluate length of line to add to log */
va_start(args, fmt);
len = vsnprintf(NULL, 0, fmt, args) + 1;
va_end(args);
+ if (len > len_left) {
+ frag = kunit_log_extend(log);
+ if (!frag)
+ return;
+
+ len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - 1;
+ log_len = 0;
+ }
+
/* Print formatted line to the log */
va_start(args, fmt);
- vsnprintf(log + log_len, min(len, len_left), fmt, args);
+ vsnprintf(frag->buf + log_len, min(len, len_left), fmt, args);
va_end(args);
/* Add newline to end of log if not already present. */
- kunit_log_newline(log);
+ kunit_log_newline(frag);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_log_append);
@@ -359,14 +380,18 @@ void __kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_do_failed_assertion);
-void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log)
+void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, struct list_head *log)
{
spin_lock_init(&test->lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test->resources);
test->name = name;
test->log = log;
- if (test->log)
- test->log[0] = '\0';
+ if (test->log) {
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag = list_first_entry(test->log,
+ struct kunit_log_frag,
+ list);
+ frag->buf[0] = '\0';
+ }
test->status = KUNIT_SUCCESS;
test->status_comment[0] = '\0';
}
--
2.30.2
Add test cases for the dynamically-extending log buffer.
kunit_log_init_frag_test() tests that kunit_init_log_frag() correctly
initializes new struct kunit_log_frag.
kunit_log_extend_test_1() logs a series of numbered lines then tests
that the resulting log contains all the lines.
kunit_log_extend_test_2() logs a large number of lines of varying length
to create many fragments, then tests that all lines are present.
kunit_log_newline_test() has a new test to append a line that is exactly
the length of the available space in the current fragment and check that
the resulting log has a trailing '\n'.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
---
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 174 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index a199f83bac67..c0ee33a8031e 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
*/
#include <kunit/test.h>
#include <kunit/test-bug.h>
+#include <linux/prandom.h>
#include "try-catch-impl.h"
@@ -530,10 +531,12 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_resource_test_suite = {
.test_cases = kunit_resource_test_cases,
};
-static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log)
+static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log,
+ int *num_frags)
{
struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
size_t len = 0;
+ int frag_count = 0;
char *p;
list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
@@ -542,24 +545,42 @@ static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *lo
len++; /* for terminating '\0' */
p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL);
- list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
+ list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list) {
strlcat(p, frag->buf, len);
+ ++frag_count;
+ }
+
+ if (num_frags)
+ *num_frags = frag_count;
return p;
}
-static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
+static void kunit_log_init_frag_test(struct kunit *test)
{
- struct kunit_suite suite;
struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
- suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ memset(frag, 0x5a, sizeof(*frag));
+
kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_is_first(&frag->list, &frag->list));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_is_last(&frag->list, &frag->list));
+}
+
+static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit_suite suite;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "put this in log.");
@@ -586,23 +607,168 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
{
+ struct kunit_suite suite;
struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+ char *p;
kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
if (test->log) {
frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n"),
"Missing log line, full log:\n%s",
- get_concatenated_log(test, test->log));
+ get_concatenated_log(test, test->log, NULL));
KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n\n"));
+
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
+
+ /* String that exactly fills fragment leaving no room for \n */
+ memset(frag->buf, 0, sizeof(frag->buf));
+ memset(frag->buf, 'x', sizeof(frag->buf) - 9);
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "12345678");
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(p, "x12345678\n"),
+ "Newline not appended when fragment is full. Log is:\n'%s'", p);
} else {
kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
}
}
+static void kunit_log_extend_test_1(struct kunit *test)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
+ struct kunit_suite suite;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+ char line[60];
+ char *p, *pn;
+ size_t len, n;
+ int num_lines, num_frags, i;
+
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
+
+ i = 0;
+ len = 0;
+ do {
+ n = snprintf(line, sizeof(line),
+ "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin %d\n", i);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, n, sizeof(line));
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, line);
+ ++i;
+ len += n;
+ } while (len < (sizeof(frag->buf) * 30));
+ num_lines = i;
+
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
+
+ kunit_info(test, "num lines:%d num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n",
+ num_lines, num_frags, strlen(p));
+
+ i = 0;
+ while ((pn = strchr(p, '\n')) != NULL) {
+ *pn = '\0';
+ snprintf(line, sizeof(line),
+ "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin %d", i);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, line);
+ p = pn + 1;
+ ++i;
+ }
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, num_lines);
+#else
+ kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
+#endif
+}
+
+static void kunit_log_extend_test_2(struct kunit *test)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
+ struct kunit_suite suite;
+ struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
+ struct rnd_state rnd;
+ char line[101];
+ char *p, *pn;
+ size_t len;
+ int num_lines, num_frags, n, i;
+
+ suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
+ frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
+ kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
+ list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
+
+ /* Build log line of varying content */
+ line[0] = '\0';
+ i = 0;
+ do {
+ char tmp[9];
+
+ snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%x", i++);
+ len = strlcat(line, tmp, sizeof(line));
+ } while (len < sizeof(line) - 1);
+
+ /*
+ * Log lines of different lengths until we have created
+ * many fragments.
+ * The "randomness" must be repeatable.
+ */
+ prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
+ i = 0;
+ len = 0;
+ num_lines = 0;
+ do {
+ kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", &line[i]);
+ len += sizeof(line) - i;
+ num_lines++;
+ i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(line) - 1);
+ } while (len < (sizeof(frag->buf) * 30));
+
+ /* There must be more than one buffer fragment now */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_is_singular(suite.log));
+
+ p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
+
+ kunit_info(test, "num lines:%d num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n",
+ num_lines, num_frags, strlen(p));
+
+ prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
+ i = 0;
+ n = 0;
+ while ((pn = strchr(p, '\n')) != NULL) {
+ *pn = '\0';
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, &line[i]);
+ p = pn + 1;
+ n++;
+ i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(line) - 1);
+ }
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, n, num_lines, "Not enough lines.");
+#else
+ kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
+#endif
+}
+
static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_init_frag_test),
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_test),
KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_newline_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_1),
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_2),
{}
};
--
2.30.2
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Add test cases for the dynamically-extending log buffer.
>
> kunit_log_init_frag_test() tests that kunit_init_log_frag() correctly
> initializes new struct kunit_log_frag.
>
> kunit_log_extend_test_1() logs a series of numbered lines then tests
> that the resulting log contains all the lines.
>
> kunit_log_extend_test_2() logs a large number of lines of varying length
> to create many fragments, then tests that all lines are present.
>
> kunit_log_newline_test() has a new test to append a line that is exactly
> the length of the available space in the current fragment and check that
> the resulting log has a trailing '\n'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Hello!
These tests now pass for me. Thanks!
I do have a few comments below mostly regarding comments and a few
clarifying questions.
-Rae
> ---
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 174 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index a199f83bac67..c0ee33a8031e 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> */
> #include <kunit/test.h>
> #include <kunit/test-bug.h>
> +#include <linux/prandom.h>
>
> #include "try-catch-impl.h"
>
> @@ -530,10 +531,12 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_resource_test_suite = {
> .test_cases = kunit_resource_test_cases,
> };
>
> -static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log)
> +static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log,
> + int *num_frags)
> {
> struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> size_t len = 0;
> + int frag_count = 0;
> char *p;
>
> list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
> @@ -542,24 +545,42 @@ static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *lo
> len++; /* for terminating '\0' */
> p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> - list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list) {
> strlcat(p, frag->buf, len);
> + ++frag_count;
> + }
> +
> + if (num_frags)
> + *num_frags = frag_count;
>
> return p;
> }
>
> -static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
> +static void kunit_log_init_frag_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> - struct kunit_suite suite;
> struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>
> - suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + memset(frag, 0x5a, sizeof(*frag));
> +
Why is the fragment getting filled here with memset? Should this be
tested? Feel free to let me know, I'm just uncertain.
> kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_is_first(&frag->list, &frag->list));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_is_last(&frag->list, &frag->list));
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct kunit_suite suite;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> +
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> + frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
>
> kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "put this in log.");
> @@ -586,23 +607,168 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
>
> static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> + struct kunit_suite suite;
> struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> + char *p;
Similar to last email, could we change p to be a more descriptive name
such as concat_log?
>
> kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
> if (test->log) {
> frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n"),
> "Missing log line, full log:\n%s",
> - get_concatenated_log(test, test->log));
> + get_concatenated_log(test, test->log, NULL));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n\n"));
> +
Should this section of kunit_log_newline_test be separated into a new
test? This test seems a bit long and seems to have two distinct
sections?
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
I would love to see a comment here to explain and break up this
section similar to the comment from the previous email.
> + frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
> +
> + /* String that exactly fills fragment leaving no room for \n */
> + memset(frag->buf, 0, sizeof(frag->buf));
> + memset(frag->buf, 'x', sizeof(frag->buf) - 9);
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "12345678");
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(p, "x12345678\n"),
> + "Newline not appended when fragment is full. Log is:\n'%s'", p);
> } else {
> kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> }
> }
>
> +static void kunit_log_extend_test_1(struct kunit *test)
In general, I would really like to see more comments in the next two
tests describing the test behavior. I would prefer a comment for each
of the while/do-while loops below. I just found the behavior to be
slightly confusing to understand without comments (although I do
appreciate the comments that are in kunit_log_extend_test_2).
Also, I really appreciate how detailed these tests are.
Another potential idea is to rename these two tests to be
kunit_log_extend_test() and kunit_log_rand_extend_test() instead to be
more descriptive?
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> + struct kunit_suite suite;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> + char line[60];
> + char *p, *pn;
Similar to before, could we change p and pn to be slightly more
descriptive names? Maybe concat_log and newline_ptr or newline_log or
newline_char?
> + size_t len, n;
> + int num_lines, num_frags, i;
> +
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> + frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
> +
> + i = 0;
> + len = 0;
> + do {
> + n = snprintf(line, sizeof(line),
> + "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin %d\n", i);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, n, sizeof(line));
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, line);
> + ++i;
> + len += n;
> + } while (len < (sizeof(frag->buf) * 30));
Are we trying to restrict the num_frags to less than 30? And then we
could check that with a KUNIT_EXPECT? Currently, the num_frags are
just above 30. That is ok too. I just was wondering if this was
intentional? (Same as kunit_log_extend_test_2)
> + num_lines = i;
> +
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
> +
> + kunit_info(test, "num lines:%d num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n",
> + num_lines, num_frags, strlen(p));
> +
> + i = 0;
> + while ((pn = strchr(p, '\n')) != NULL) {
> + *pn = '\0';
> + snprintf(line, sizeof(line),
> + "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin %d", i);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, line);
> + p = pn + 1;
> + ++i;
> + }
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, num_lines);
> +#else
> + kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_log_extend_test_2(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> + struct kunit_suite suite;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> + struct rnd_state rnd;
> + char line[101];
> + char *p, *pn;
Similar to above, could p and pn be renamed to be more descriptive?
> + size_t len;
> + int num_lines, num_frags, n, i;
> +
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> + frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
> +
> + /* Build log line of varying content */
> + line[0] = '\0';
> + i = 0;
> + do {
> + char tmp[9];
> +
> + snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%x", i++);
> + len = strlcat(line, tmp, sizeof(line));
> + } while (len < sizeof(line) - 1);
Could there be an expectation statement here to check the line has
been properly filled. Maybe checking the length?
> +
> + /*
> + * Log lines of different lengths until we have created
> + * many fragments.
> + * The "randomness" must be repeatable.
> + */
> + prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
> + i = 0;
> + len = 0;
> + num_lines = 0;
> + do {
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", &line[i]);
> + len += sizeof(line) - i;
> + num_lines++;
> + i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(line) - 1);
> + } while (len < (sizeof(frag->buf) * 30));
> +
> + /* There must be more than one buffer fragment now */
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_is_singular(suite.log));
> +
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
> +
> + kunit_info(test, "num lines:%d num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n",
> + num_lines, num_frags, strlen(p));
> +
> + prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
> + i = 0;
> + n = 0;
> + while ((pn = strchr(p, '\n')) != NULL) {
> + *pn = '\0';
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, &line[i]);
> + p = pn + 1;
> + n++;
> + i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(line) - 1);
> + }
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, n, num_lines, "Not enough lines.");
Is it possible for this to be too many lines instead? Should this
comment instead be "Unexpected number of lines". Also could we have a
similar message for the test above for this expectation regarding the
number of lines.
> +#else
> + kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_init_frag_test),
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_test),
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_newline_test),
> + KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_1),
> + KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_2),
> {}
> };
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Re-implement the log buffer as a list of buffer fragments that can
> be extended as the size of the log info grows.
>
> When using parameterization the test case can run many times and create
> a large amount of log. It's not really practical to keep increasing the
> size of the fixed buffer every time a test needs more space. And a big
> fixed buffer wastes memory.
>
> The original char *log pointer is replaced by a pointer to a list of
> struct kunit_log_frag, each containing a fixed-size buffer.
>
> kunit_log_append() now attempts to append to the last kunit_log_frag in
> the list. If there isn't enough space it will append a new kunit_log_frag
> to the list. This simple implementation does not attempt to completely
> fill the buffer in every kunit_log_frag.
>
> The 'log' member of kunit_suite, kunit_test_case and kunit_suite must be a
> pointer because the API of kunit_log() requires that is the same type in
> all three structs. As kunit.log is a pointer to the 'log' of the current
> kunit_case, it must be a pointer in the other two structs.
>
> The existing kunit-test.c log tests have been updated to build against the
> new fragmented log implementation. If the test fails the new function
> get_concatenated_log() constructs a single contiguous string from the
> log fragments so that the whole log can be emitted in the failure
> message.
Hello!
All the tests now pass for me and this patch now looks good to me. I
have tested it and it seems to be working well.
I just have a few nits below. But I am overall happy with this patch.
Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <[email protected]>
-Rae
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/kunit/test.h | 25 +++++++++++-----
> lib/kunit/debugfs.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> lib/kunit/test.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 4 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index d33114097d0d..cb5082efc91c 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -33,8 +33,8 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(kunit_running);
>
> struct kunit;
>
> -/* Size of log associated with test. */
> -#define KUNIT_LOG_SIZE 2048
> +/* Size of log buffer fragments. */
> +#define KUNIT_LOG_FRAGMENT_SIZE (256 - sizeof(struct list_head))
>
> /* Maximum size of parameter description string. */
> #define KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE 128
> @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ struct kunit_attributes {
> enum kunit_speed speed;
> };
>
> +struct kunit_log_frag {
> + struct list_head list;
> + char buf[KUNIT_LOG_FRAGMENT_SIZE];
> +};
> +
> +static inline void kunit_init_log_frag(struct kunit_log_frag *frag)
> +{
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&frag->list);
> + frag->buf[0] = '\0';
> +}
> +
> /**
> * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
> *
> @@ -132,7 +143,7 @@ struct kunit_case {
> /* private: internal use only. */
> enum kunit_status status;
> char *module_name;
> - char *log;
> + struct list_head *log;
> };
>
> static inline char *kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(enum kunit_status status)
> @@ -252,7 +263,7 @@ struct kunit_suite {
> /* private: internal use only */
> char status_comment[KUNIT_STATUS_COMMENT_SIZE];
> struct dentry *debugfs;
> - char *log;
> + struct list_head *log;
> int suite_init_err;
> };
>
> @@ -278,7 +289,7 @@ struct kunit {
>
> /* private: internal use only. */
> const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
> - char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
> + struct list_head *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
To respond to some of the comments from the previous version, I am
fine with the list_head being a pointer considering there can only be
one list_head in this struct definition.
> struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
> /* param_value is the current parameter value for a test case. */
> const void *param_value;
> @@ -314,7 +325,7 @@ const char *kunit_filter_glob(void);
> char *kunit_filter(void);
> char *kunit_filter_action(void);
>
> -void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
> +void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, struct list_head *log);
>
> int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
>
> @@ -472,7 +483,7 @@ static inline void *kunit_kcalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t n, size_t size, gfp
>
> void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test);
>
> -void __printf(2, 3) kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...);
> +void __printf(2, 3) kunit_log_append(struct list_head *log, const char *fmt, ...);
>
> /**
> * kunit_mark_skipped() - Marks @test_or_suite as skipped
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/debugfs.c b/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
> index 22c5c496a68f..a26b6d31bd2f 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/debugfs.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
>
> #include <kunit/test.h>
> @@ -37,14 +38,15 @@ void kunit_debugfs_init(void)
> debugfs_rootdir = debugfs_create_dir(KUNIT_DEBUGFS_ROOT, NULL);
> }
>
> -static void debugfs_print_result(struct seq_file *seq,
> - struct kunit_suite *suite,
> - struct kunit_case *test_case)
> +static void debugfs_print_log(struct seq_file *seq, const struct list_head *log)
> {
> - if (!test_case || !test_case->log)
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> +
> + if (!log)
> return;
>
> - seq_printf(seq, "%s", test_case->log);
> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
> + seq_puts(seq, frag->buf);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -69,10 +71,9 @@ static int debugfs_print_results(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> seq_printf(seq, KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "1..%zd\n", kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite));
>
> kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> - debugfs_print_result(seq, suite, test_case);
> + debugfs_print_log(seq, test_case->log);
>
> - if (suite->log)
> - seq_printf(seq, "%s", suite->log);
> + debugfs_print_log(seq, suite->log);
>
> seq_printf(seq, "%s %d %s\n",
> kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(success), 1, suite->name);
> @@ -100,14 +101,53 @@ static const struct file_operations debugfs_results_fops = {
> .release = debugfs_release,
> };
>
> +static struct list_head *kunit_debugfs_alloc_log(void)
> +{
> + struct list_head *log;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> +
> + log = kzalloc(sizeof(*log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!log)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(log);
> +
> + frag = kmalloc(sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!frag) {
> + kfree(log);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, log);
> +
> + return log;
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_debugfs_free_log(struct list_head *log)
> +{
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag, *n;
> +
> + if (!log)
> + return;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(frag, n, log, list) {
> + list_del(&frag->list);
> + kfree(frag);
> + }
> +
> + kfree(log);
> +}
> +
> void kunit_debugfs_create_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> {
> struct kunit_case *test_case;
>
> /* Allocate logs before creating debugfs representation. */
> - suite->log = kzalloc(KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + suite->log = kunit_debugfs_alloc_log();
> +
> kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> - test_case->log = kzalloc(KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + test_case->log = kunit_debugfs_alloc_log();
>
> suite->debugfs = debugfs_create_dir(suite->name, debugfs_rootdir);
>
> @@ -121,7 +161,8 @@ void kunit_debugfs_destroy_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> struct kunit_case *test_case;
>
> debugfs_remove_recursive(suite->debugfs);
> - kfree(suite->log);
> + kunit_debugfs_free_log(suite->log);
> +
> kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> - kfree(test_case->log);
> + kunit_debugfs_free_log(test_case->log);
> }
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index 83d8e90ca7a2..a199f83bac67 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -530,12 +530,37 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_resource_test_suite = {
> .test_cases = kunit_resource_test_cases,
> };
>
> +static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log)
> +{
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> + size_t len = 0;
> + char *p;
I wonder if we could change the name of p to be a bit more
descriptive. Maybe concat_log?
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
> + len += strlen(frag->buf);
> +
> + len++; /* for terminating '\0' */
> + p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
> + strlcat(p, frag->buf, len);
> +
> + return p;
> +}
> +
> static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite suite;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>
> - suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
This section of the test is pretty dense. I would love to see at least
one comment in this section. Maybe it could be here and say something
like:
"/* Allocate, initialize, and then add the first fragment of log */"
> + frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
>
> kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "put this in log.");
> kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "this too.");
> @@ -543,14 +568,17 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
> kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &suite, "along with this.");
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> + frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> - strstr(test->log, "put this in log."));
> + strstr(frag->buf, "put this in log."));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> - strstr(test->log, "this too."));
> + strstr(frag->buf, "this too."));
> +
> + frag = list_first_entry(suite.log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> - strstr(suite.log, "add to suite log."));
> + strstr(frag->buf, "add to suite log."));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> - strstr(suite.log, "along with this."));
> + strstr(frag->buf, "along with this."));
> #else
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, test->log);
This test passes when CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS=n while most of the other
tests are skipped. Should this test be skipped instead?
I'm assuming since the assert/expect statements at the beginning are
run even if CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS=n, this test should not be skipped
but I just wanted to check.
> #endif
> @@ -558,11 +586,15 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
>
> static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> +
> kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
> if (test->log) {
This is a small nit but I would prefer that the if statements to
decide whether CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS is enabled were uniform. So I
would prefer that we choose between if (test->log) and #ifdef
CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS. I think we originally chose to use if
(test->log) here to avoid the compile-time #ifdef.
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(test->log, "Add newline\n"),
> - "Missing log line, full log:\n%s", test->log);
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(test->log, "Add newline\n\n"));
> + frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n"),
> + "Missing log line, full log:\n%s",
> + get_concatenated_log(test, test->log));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n\n"));
> } else {
> kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> }
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 49698a168437..dfe51bc2b387 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> #include <kunit/test-bug.h>
> #include <kunit/attributes.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> #include <linux/panic.h>
> @@ -114,46 +115,66 @@ static void kunit_print_test_stats(struct kunit *test,
> * already present.
> * @log: The log to add the newline to.
> */
> -static void kunit_log_newline(char *log)
> +static void kunit_log_newline(struct kunit_log_frag *frag)
> {
> int log_len, len_left;
>
> - log_len = strlen(log);
> - len_left = KUNIT_LOG_SIZE - log_len - 1;
> + log_len = strlen(frag->buf);
> + len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - log_len - 1;
>
> - if (log_len > 0 && log[log_len - 1] != '\n')
> - strncat(log, "\n", len_left);
> + if (log_len > 0 && frag->buf[log_len - 1] != '\n')
> + strncat(frag->buf, "\n", len_left);
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Append formatted message to log, size of which is limited to
> - * KUNIT_LOG_SIZE bytes (including null terminating byte).
> - */
> -void kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...)
> +static struct kunit_log_frag *kunit_log_extend(struct list_head *log)
I would love to see just a short comment describing kunit_log_extend
to prevent confusion with kunit_log_append.
> +{
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> +
> + frag = kmalloc(sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!frag)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, log);
> +
> + return frag;
> +}
> +
> +/* Append formatted message to log, extending the log buffer if necessary. */
> +void kunit_log_append(struct list_head *log, const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> va_list args;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> int len, log_len, len_left;
>
> if (!log)
> return;
>
> - log_len = strlen(log);
> - len_left = KUNIT_LOG_SIZE - log_len - 1;
> - if (len_left <= 0)
> - return;
> + frag = list_last_entry(log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> + log_len = strlen(frag->buf);
> + len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - log_len - 1;
>
> /* Evaluate length of line to add to log */
> va_start(args, fmt);
> len = vsnprintf(NULL, 0, fmt, args) + 1;
> va_end(args);
>
> + if (len > len_left) {
> + frag = kunit_log_extend(log);
> + if (!frag)
> + return;
> +
> + len_left = sizeof(frag->buf) - 1;
> + log_len = 0;
> + }
> +
> /* Print formatted line to the log */
> va_start(args, fmt);
> - vsnprintf(log + log_len, min(len, len_left), fmt, args);
> + vsnprintf(frag->buf + log_len, min(len, len_left), fmt, args);
> va_end(args);
>
> /* Add newline to end of log if not already present. */
> - kunit_log_newline(log);
> + kunit_log_newline(frag);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_log_append);
>
> @@ -359,14 +380,18 @@ void __kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_do_failed_assertion);
>
> -void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log)
> +void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, struct list_head *log)
> {
> spin_lock_init(&test->lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test->resources);
> test->name = name;
> test->log = log;
> - if (test->log)
> - test->log[0] = '\0';
> + if (test->log) {
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag = list_first_entry(test->log,
> + struct kunit_log_frag,
> + list);
> + frag->buf[0] = '\0';
> + }
> test->status = KUNIT_SUCCESS;
> test->status_comment[0] = '\0';
> }
> --
> 2.30.2
>
On 9/8/23 22:10, Rae Moar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Re-implement the log buffer as a list of buffer fragments that can
>> be extended as the size of the log info grows.
>>
>> When using parameterization the test case can run many times and create
>> a large amount of log. It's not really practical to keep increasing the
>> size of the fixed buffer every time a test needs more space. And a big
>> fixed buffer wastes memory.
>>
>> The original char *log pointer is replaced by a pointer to a list of
>> struct kunit_log_frag, each containing a fixed-size buffer.
>>
>> kunit_log_append() now attempts to append to the last kunit_log_frag in
>> the list. If there isn't enough space it will append a new kunit_log_frag
>> to the list. This simple implementation does not attempt to completely
>> fill the buffer in every kunit_log_frag.
>>
>> The 'log' member of kunit_suite, kunit_test_case and kunit_suite must be a
>> pointer because the API of kunit_log() requires that is the same type in
>> all three structs. As kunit.log is a pointer to the 'log' of the current
>> kunit_case, it must be a pointer in the other two structs.
>>
>> The existing kunit-test.c log tests have been updated to build against the
>> new fragmented log implementation. If the test fails the new function
>> get_concatenated_log() constructs a single contiguous string from the
>> log fragments so that the whole log can be emitted in the failure
>> message.
>
> Hello!
>
> All the tests now pass for me and this patch now looks good to me. I
> have tested it and it seems to be working well.
>
> I just have a few nits below. But I am overall happy with this patch.
>
> Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <[email protected]>
>
> -Rae
>
...
>> +static char *get_concatenated_log(struct kunit *test, const struct list_head *log)
>> +{
>> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>> + size_t len = 0;
>> + char *p;
>
> I wonder if we could change the name of p to be a bit more
> descriptive. Maybe concat_log?
I'll do that.
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
>> + len += strlen(frag->buf);
>> +
>> + len++; /* for terminating '\0' */
>> + p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(frag, log, list)
>> + strlcat(p, frag->buf, len);
>> +
>> + return p;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> struct kunit_suite suite;
>> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>>
>> - suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, KUNIT_LOG_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
>> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
>
> This section of the test is pretty dense. I would love to see at least
> one comment in this section. Maybe it could be here and say something
> like:
> "/* Allocate, initialize, and then add the first fragment of log */"
Good. You like comments. So do I.
But many people hate them so when I'm starting on a new subsystem I go
with however the existing code looks. And the bits of kunit I've looked
at are light on comments.
...
>> @@ -543,14 +568,17 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
>> kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &suite, "along with this.");
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
>> + frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
>> - strstr(test->log, "put this in log."));
>> + strstr(frag->buf, "put this in log."));
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
>> - strstr(test->log, "this too."));
>> + strstr(frag->buf, "this too."));
>> +
>> + frag = list_first_entry(suite.log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
>> - strstr(suite.log, "add to suite log."));
>> + strstr(frag->buf, "add to suite log."));
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
>> - strstr(suite.log, "along with this."));
>> + strstr(frag->buf, "along with this."));
>> #else
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, test->log);
>
> This test passes when CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS=n while most of the other
> tests are skipped. Should this test be skipped instead?
>
> I'm assuming since the assert/expect statements at the beginning are
> run even if CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS=n, this test should not be skipped
> but I just wanted to check.
That the existing code, which I didn't change.
I think the best thing here would be to move the fragment testing into a
new test case.
>> #endif
>> @@ -558,11 +586,15 @@ static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
>>
>> static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>> +
>> kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
>> if (test->log) {
>
> This is a small nit but I would prefer that the if statements to
> decide whether CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS is enabled were uniform. So I
> would prefer that we choose between if (test->log) and #ifdef
> CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS. I think we originally chose to use if
> (test->log) here to avoid the compile-time #ifdef.
Actually the existing code did it both ways. The newline test used
if (test->log) - but this makes sense because it actually does testing
on test->log.
The original kunit_log_test() used #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS. I based
my new functions on kunit_log_test(). But I can change them. Would you
prefer
if (!test->log)
skip
or
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS))
skip
On 9/8/23 22:10, Rae Moar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Add test cases for the dynamically-extending log buffer.
>>
>> kunit_log_init_frag_test() tests that kunit_init_log_frag() correctly
>> initializes new struct kunit_log_frag.
>>
>> kunit_log_extend_test_1() logs a series of numbered lines then tests
>> that the resulting log contains all the lines.
>>
>> kunit_log_extend_test_2() logs a large number of lines of varying length
>> to create many fragments, then tests that all lines are present.
>>
>> kunit_log_newline_test() has a new test to append a line that is exactly
>> the length of the available space in the current fragment and check that
>> the resulting log has a trailing '\n'.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
>
> Hello!
>
> These tests now pass for me. Thanks!
>
> I do have a few comments below mostly regarding comments and a few
> clarifying questions.
>
> -Rae
...
>> +static void kunit_log_init_frag_test(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> - struct kunit_suite suite;
>> struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
>>
>> - suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
>> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
>> frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
>> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
>> + memset(frag, 0x5a, sizeof(*frag));
>> +
>
> Why is the fragment getting filled here with memset? Should this be
> tested? Feel free to let me know, I'm just uncertain.
I'll add a comment in V4. It's to prove that kunit_init_log_frag()
really did change something. kzalloc() is no good for this because we
want to see that kunit_log_frag() zeroed buf[0].
...
>> kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
>> if (test->log) {
>> frag = list_first_entry(test->log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
>> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n"),
>> "Missing log line, full log:\n%s",
>> - get_concatenated_log(test, test->log));
>> + get_concatenated_log(test, test->log, NULL));
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(frag->buf, "Add newline\n\n"));
>> +
>
> Should this section of kunit_log_newline_test be separated into a new
> test? This test seems a bit long and seems to have two distinct
> sections?
Yes, it makes sense to add a separate test case for when newlines cause
the log to extend.
...
> Another potential idea is to rename these two tests to be
> kunit_log_extend_test() and kunit_log_rand_extend_test() instead to be
> more descriptive?
TBH I had trouble thinking of a short description. But I'll spend some
time thinking about naming.
...
>> + do {
>> + n = snprintf(line, sizeof(line),
>> + "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin %d\n", i);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, n, sizeof(line));
>> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, line);
>> + ++i;
>> + len += n;
>> + } while (len < (sizeof(frag->buf) * 30));
>
> Are we trying to restrict the num_frags to less than 30? And then we
> could check that with a KUNIT_EXPECT? Currently, the num_frags are
> just above 30. That is ok too. I just was wondering if this was
> intentional? (Same as kunit_log_extend_test_2)
I'll comment on this in V4.
It's just trying to create "a lot" of data without assuming exactly
how kunit_log_append() breaks up the lines across fragments. I don't
want to have to keep changing this code if the fragmenting algorithm
changes slightly. So the idea is to generate "about 30" buffers worth.
I don't mind if it's a bit more, or a bit less. It's done this way,
instead of just counting how many fragments were created, to prevent
getting into an infinite loop if for some reason kunit_log_append()
fails to add fragments.
...
>> + /* Build log line of varying content */
>> + line[0] = '\0';
>> + i = 0;
>> + do {
>> + char tmp[9];
>> +
>> + snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "%x", i++);
>> + len = strlcat(line, tmp, sizeof(line));
>> + } while (len < sizeof(line) - 1);
>
> Could there be an expectation statement here to check the line has
> been properly filled. Maybe checking the length?
Yes
>> + prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
>> + i = 0;
>> + n = 0;
>> + while ((pn = strchr(p, '\n')) != NULL) {
>> + *pn = '\0';
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, &line[i]);
>> + p = pn + 1;
>> + n++;
>> + i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(line) - 1);
>> + }
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, n, num_lines, "Not enough lines.");
>
> Is it possible for this to be too many lines instead? Should this
> comment instead be "Unexpected number of lines". Also could we have a
> similar message for the test above for this expectation regarding the
> number of lines.
Fair point. It's only found that the number of lines is wrong, it
could be less or more.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Add kunit_log_long_line_test() to test that logging a line longer than
> the buffer fragment size doesn't truncate the line.
>
> Add extra tests to kunit_log_newline_test() for lines longer than the
> buffer fragment size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Hello!
This test looks good to me. I have included just a few comments below.
Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <[email protected]>
Thanks!
-Rae
> ---
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index 9ac81828d018..c079550c3afd 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite suite;
> struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> - char *p;
> + char *p, *line;
>
> kunit_info(test, "Add newline\n");
> if (test->log) {
> @@ -635,6 +635,33 @@ static void kunit_log_newline_test(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_NULL_MSG(test, strstr(p, "x12345678\n"),
> "Newline not appended when fragment is full. Log is:\n'%s'", p);
> + kunit_kfree(test, p);
> +
I really like the thoroughness of this test. However, I do wonder if
this newline test could be broken into at least 2 parts as the test is
quite long with all these additions. I spoke on this in a previous
patch and just wanted to touch on it here as well.
> + /* String that is much longer than a fragment */
> + line = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(frag->buf) * 6, GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, line);
> + memset(line, 'x', (sizeof(frag->buf) * 6) - 1);
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s", line);
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
> + kunit_kfree(test, p);
> +
I would also consider adding comments between these three cases to
describe their differences and maybe what the desired behavior would
be.
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", line);
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
> + kunit_kfree(test, p);
> +
> + line[strlen(line) - 1] = '\n';
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s", line);
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n');
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, strstr(p, "\n\n"));
> + kunit_kfree(test, p);
> } else {
> kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> }
> @@ -799,6 +826,60 @@ static void kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test(struct kunit *test)
> #endif
> }
>
> +static void kunit_log_long_line_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> + struct kunit_suite suite;
> + struct kunit_log_frag *frag;
> + struct rnd_state rnd;
> + char *line, *p, *pn;
> + size_t line_buf_size, len;
> + int num_frags, i;
> +
> + suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> + frag = kunit_kmalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
> + kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, frag->buf[0], '\0');
> + list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
> +
> + /* Create a very long string to be logged */
> + line_buf_size = sizeof(frag->buf) * 6;
> + line = kunit_kmalloc(test, line_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, line);
> + line[0] = '\0';
> +
> + prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
I was a little worried about including a randomized string but since
it does not need to be reproduced here it should be fine. I also
haven't seen any issues with the tests with the randomized strings
being nondeterministic.
> + len = 0;
> + do {
> + static const char fill[] =
> + "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
> +
> + i = prandom_u32_state(&rnd) % (sizeof(fill) - 1);
> + len = strlcat(line, &fill[i], line_buf_size);
> + } while (len < line_buf_size);
> +
> + kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", line);
> +
> + p = get_concatenated_log(test, suite.log, &num_frags);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, p);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, num_frags, 1);
> +
> + kunit_info(test, "num_frags:%d total len:%zu\n", num_frags, strlen(p));
> +
> + /* Don't compare the trailing '\n' */
> + pn = strrchr(p, '\n');
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, pn);
> + *pn = '\0';
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, strlen(p), strlen(line));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, p, line);
> +#else
> + kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_init_frag_test),
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_test),
> @@ -806,6 +887,7 @@ static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_1),
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_extend_test_2),
> KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test),
> + KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_long_line_test),
> {}
> };
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>