Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: support failure from dynamic analysis tools

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

On 4/2/21 3:44 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 4/2/21 3:25 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:53 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/2/21 2:55 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@google.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to fail the currently running
>>>>> test, if any, with an error message.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is largely intended for dynamic analysis tools like UBSAN and for
>>>>> fakes.
>>>>> E.g. say I had a fake ops struct for testing and I wanted my `free`
>>>>> function to complain if it was called with an invalid argument, or
>>>>> caught a double-free. Most return void and have no normal means of
>>>>> signalling failure (e.g. super_operations, iommu_ops, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> Key points:
>>>>> * Always update current->kunit_test so anyone can use it.
>>>>>     * commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") only updated 
>>>>> it for
>>>>>     CONFIG_KASAN=y
>>>>>
>>>>> * Create a new header <kunit/test-bug.h> so non-test code doesn't have
>>>>> to include all of <kunit/test.h> (e.g. lib/ubsan.c)
>>>>>
>>>>> * Forward the file and line number to make it easier to track down
>>>>> failures
>>>>>
>>>>> * Declare the helper function for nice __printf() warnings about 
>>>>> mismatched
>>>>> format strings even when KUnit is not enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example output from kunit_fail_current_test("message"):
>>>>> [15:19:34] [FAILED] example_simple_test
>>>>> [15:19:34]     # example_simple_test: initializing
>>>>> [15:19:34]     # example_simple_test: 
>>>>> lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:24: message
>>>>> [15:19:34]     not ok 1 - example_simple_test
>>>>>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@google.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please run checkpatch on your patches in the future. I am seeing
>>> a few checkpatch readability type improvements that can be made.
>>>
>>> Please make changes and send v2 with Brendan's Reviewed-by.
>>
>> Thanks for the catch.
>> checkpatch.pl --strict should now be happy (aside from complaining
>> about line wrapping)
>>
>> v5 here: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210402212131.835276-1-dlatypov@google.com 
>>
>>
>> Note: Brendan didn't give an explicit Reviewed-by on the second patch,
>> not sure if that was intentional.
>>
> 
> No worries. I applied this one as well. I was able to fix it with just
> checkpatch --fix option.
> 

Clarification. Applied 1/2 - I will wait for Brendan's ack on 2/2

thanks,
-- Shuah