Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:11:58 -0500
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Huang, Shaoqin" <shaoqin.huang@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] memblock tests: add verbose output to memblock
 tests
Message-ID: <YrRmnu67AMvvqOKs@kernel.org>
References: <cover.1655889641.git.remckee0@gmail.com>
 <004e021cc3cb7be8749361b3b1cb324459b9cb9f.1655889641.git.remckee0@gmail.com>
 <b7e6565b-d9f7-a5cc-8e66-087ea7b270d1@intel.com>
 <YrO3uyXee9DcMTzz@bertie>
 <d53b547a-1450-82de-a3c5-4bb09f2a728d@intel.com>
 <YrPmhzZDd9YFyEUa@kernel.org>
 <YrPyfqENPHfUCaq4@bertie>
 <YrP0YVMKo19Wrv44@kernel.org>
 <YrQc6kl2q4VyuW6E@bertie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrQc6kl2q4VyuW6E@bertie>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 02:57:30AM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:04:33AM -0500, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:56:30PM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:05:27PM -0500, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:29:05AM +0800, Huang, Shaoqin wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 6/23/2022 8:45 AM, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:32:04PM +0800, Huang, Shaoqin wrote:
> > > > > > > Just test it and everything works fine. And I think there are some thing can
> > > > > > > improve:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >      The prefix_push() and prefix_pop() are used in so many functions and
> > > > > > > almost of them just put the prefix_push(__func__) begin in the head and the
> > > > > > > prefix_pop() in the end.
> > > > > > >      May be you can define some macro that when you output something and
> > > > > > > automatically push the __func__ as prefix. And when leave the function,
> > > > > > > automatically pop it. And only in some special place, you call it manually.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you for your review. I'm not sure how you would automatically push
> > > > > > __func__ since you have to be inside the function to access that
> > > > > > variable. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I am thinking about
> > > > > > adding another function in common.c that just calls test_pass() followed
> > > > > > by prefix_pop() since those are called together so often.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just like:
> > > > > #define test_pass_macro()               \
> > > > >          do {                            \
> > > > >                  prefix_push(__func__);  \
> > > > >                  test_pass();            \
> > > > >                  prefix_pop();           \
> > > > >          } while (0)
> > > > 
> > > > This will not print the name of the failing test, e.g. instead of 
> > > > 
> > > > not ok 28 : memblock_alloc: alloc_bottom_up_disjoint_check: failed
> > > > 
> > > > with Rebecca's implementation it'll print
> > > > 
> > > > not ok 28 : memblock_alloc: failed
> > > > 
> > > Oh yeah, prefix_push() needs to be called before the asserts.
> > > 
> > > > How about
> > > > 
> > > > #define PREFIX_PUSH() 	prefix_push(__func__)?
> > > >  
> > > Good idea. What about 
> > > 
> > > #define TEST_PASS() do { \
> > > 	test_pass(); \
> > > 	prefix_pop(); \
> > > } while (0)
> > > 
> > > ? Or would it be better to make a function?
> > 
> > static inline function would be better.
> > 
> Would there be any advantage to defining a different version for each
> side of #ifdef VERBOSE? 

No, a single version will do. For !VERBOSE builds it will be optimized out
anyway.
 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rebecca

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.