Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Introduce KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ macros

[David Gow <davidgow@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3416 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 3:06 AM Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Currently, in order to compare memory blocks in KUnit, the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ or
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE macros are used in conjunction with the memcmp function,
> such as:
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
>
> Although this usage produces correct results for the test cases, if the
> expectation fails the error message is not very helpful, indicating only the
> return of the memcmp function.
>
> Therefore, create a new set of macros KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and
> KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ that compare memory blocks until a determined size. In
> case of expectation failure, those macros print the hex dump of the memory
> blocks, making it easier to debug test failures for memory blocks.
>
> The v6 has some changes on the first patch, due to rebase on top of Linux 6.1,
> specially the renaming of KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED
> (97d453bc4007d4ac148c2ba89904026612b91ec9). Moreover, the DRM KUnit tests were
> mainlined in 6.1.
>
> The first patch of the series introduces the KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and
> KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ. The second patch adds an example of memory block
> expectations on the kunit-example-test.c. And the last patch replaces the
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ for KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ on the existing occurrences.
>
> Best Regards,
> - Maíra Canal
>
> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/2a0dcd75-5461-5266-2749-808f638f4c50@riseup.net/T/#m402cc72eb01fb3b88d6706cf7d1705fdd51e5da2
>
> - Change "determinated" to "specified" (Daniel Latypov).
> - Change the macro KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ to KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ, in order to make
> it easier for users to infer the right size unit (Daniel Latypov).
> - Mark the different bytes on the failure message with a <> (Daniel Latypov).
> - Replace a constant number of array elements for ARRAY_SIZE() (André Almeida).
> - Rename "array" and "expected" variables to "array1" and "array2" (Daniel Latypov).
>
> v2 -> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220802212621.420840-1-mairacanal@riseup.net/T/#t
>
> - Make the bytes aligned at output.
> - Add KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT to the output for the indentation (Daniel Latypov).
> - Line up the trailing \ at macros using tabs (Daniel Latypov).
> - Line up the params to the functions (Daniel Latypov).
> - Change "Increament" to "Augment" (Daniel Latypov).
> - Use sizeof() for array sizes (Daniel Latypov).
> - Add Daniel Latypov's tags.
>
> v3 -> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CABVgOSm_59Yr82deQm2C=18jjSv_akmn66zs4jxx3hfziXPeHg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
>
> - Fix wrapped lines by the mail client (David Gow).
> - Mention on documentation that KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ is not recommended for
> structured data (David Gow).
> - Add Muhammad Usama Anjum's tag.
>
> v4 -> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220808125237.277126-1-mairacanal@riseup.net/
>
> - Rebase on top of drm-misc-next.
> - Add David Gow's tags.
>
> v5 -> v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220921014515.113062-1-mairacanal@riseup.net/
>
> - Rebase on top of Linux 6.1.
> - Change KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED.
>

Thanks a bunch for rebasing this. It works well here, and I'm planning
to use it in some tests I'm writing!

One minor formatting comment on patch 1/3, otherwise this whole series
is good to go.

Cheers,
-- David

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]