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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230809155438.22470-1-rf@opensource.cirrus.com> <20230809155438.22470-5-rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230809155438.22470-5-rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
From:   Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:22:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+GJov5tw2kCmy=Qrnw4EK9Dr91MXAsOmai0XFz-2tfgZ724vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] kunit: kunit-test: Test logging a line that
 exactly fills a fragment
To:     Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     brendan.higgins@linux.dev, davidgow@google.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.cirrus.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54=E2=80=AFAM Richard Fitzgerald
<rf@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
>
> If a log string is the exact length of a log fragment buffer
> kunit_log_append() should now exactly fill that fragment without
> extending the log.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>

Hello!

This test looks good to me. I have tested it and it seems to be working wel=
l.

I appreciate all of the assert and expect statements. I do have one
comment below.

Although, I would be happy to set this as reviewed by me after that
comment is responded to.

Thanks!
-Rae

> ---
>  lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index c0ee33a8031e..9ac81828d018 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -763,12 +763,49 @@ static void kunit_log_extend_test_2(struct kunit *t=
est)
>  #endif
>  }
>
> +static void kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> +       struct kunit_suite suite;
> +       struct kunit_log_frag *frag, *src;
> +
> +       suite.log =3D kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL)=
;
> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
> +       frag =3D 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);
> +
> +       src =3D kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*src), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, src);
> +       memset(src->buf, 'x', sizeof(src->buf) - 2);
> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, strlen(src->buf), sizeof(src->buf) - 2);

Should this be an EXPECT instead? It doesn't seem like the test needs
to fail immediately if this fails. Let me know what you think.

> +
> +       /* Log a string that exactly fills the fragment */
> +       kunit_log_append(suite.log, "%s\n", src->buf);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_is_singular(suite.log));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, strlen(frag->buf), sizeof(frag->buf) - 1);
> +       strlcat(src->buf, "\n", sizeof(src->buf));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, frag->buf, src->buf);
> +
> +       /* Logging another string should extend the log */
> +       kunit_log_append(suite.log, "Next\n");
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, list_count_nodes(suite.log), 2);
> +       frag =3D list_last_entry(suite.log, struct kunit_log_frag, list);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, frag->buf, "Next\n");
> +#else
> +       kunit_skip(test, "only useful when debugfs is enabled");
> +#endif
> +}
> +
>  static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] =3D {
>         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),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test),
>         {}
>  };
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>