linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
To: brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
	miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com,
	Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] kunit: rename base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:26:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221001002638.2881842-3-dlatypov@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221001002638.2881842-1-dlatypov@google.com>

Context:
Currently this macro's name, KUNIT_ASSERTION conflicts with the name of
an enum whose values are {KUNIT_EXPECTATION, KUNIT_ASSERTION}.

It's hard to think of a better name for the enum, so rename this macro.
It's also a bit strange that the macro might do nothing depending on the
boolean argument `pass`. Why not have callers check themselves?

This patch:
Moves the pass/fail checking into the callers of KUNIT_ASSERTION, so now
we only call it when the check has failed.
Then we rename the macro the _KUNIT_FAILED() to reflect the new
semantics.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
---
 include/kunit/test.h | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
index 3476549106f7..fec437c8a2b7 100644
--- a/include/kunit/test.h
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -475,30 +475,27 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
 			       assert_format_t assert_format,
 			       const char *fmt, ...);
 
-#define KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, pass, assert_class, assert_format, INITIALIZER, fmt, ...) do { \
-	if (unlikely(!(pass))) {					       \
-		static const struct kunit_loc __loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC;       \
-		struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER;		       \
-		kunit_do_failed_assertion(test,				       \
-					  &__loc,			       \
-					  assert_type,			       \
-					  &__assertion.assert,		       \
-					  assert_format,		       \
-					  fmt,				       \
-					  ##__VA_ARGS__);		       \
-	}								       \
+#define _KUNIT_FAILED(test, assert_type, assert_class, assert_format, INITIALIZER, fmt, ...) do { \
+	static const struct kunit_loc __loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC;	       \
+	struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER;			       \
+	kunit_do_failed_assertion(test,					       \
+				  &__loc,				       \
+				  assert_type,				       \
+				  &__assertion.assert,			       \
+				  assert_format,			       \
+				  fmt,					       \
+				  ##__VA_ARGS__);			       \
 } while (0)
 
 
 #define KUNIT_FAIL_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, fmt, ...)		       \
-	KUNIT_ASSERTION(test,						       \
-			assert_type,					       \
-			false,						       \
-			kunit_fail_assert,				       \
-			kunit_fail_assert_format,			       \
-			{},						       \
-			fmt,						       \
-			##__VA_ARGS__)
+	_KUNIT_FAILED(test,						       \
+		      assert_type,					       \
+		      kunit_fail_assert,				       \
+		      kunit_fail_assert_format,				       \
+		      {},						       \
+		      fmt,						       \
+		      ##__VA_ARGS__)
 
 /**
  * KUNIT_FAIL() - Always causes a test to fail when evaluated.
@@ -523,15 +520,19 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
 			      expected_true,				       \
 			      fmt,					       \
 			      ...)					       \
-	KUNIT_ASSERTION(test,						       \
-			assert_type,					       \
-			!!(condition) == !!expected_true,		       \
-			kunit_unary_assert,				       \
-			kunit_unary_assert_format,			       \
-			KUNIT_INIT_UNARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(#condition,	       \
-						       expected_true),	       \
-			fmt,						       \
-			##__VA_ARGS__)
+do {									       \
+	if (likely(!!(condition) == !!expected_true))			       \
+		break;							       \
+									       \
+	_KUNIT_FAILED(test,						       \
+		      assert_type,					       \
+		      kunit_unary_assert,				       \
+		      kunit_unary_assert_format,			       \
+		      KUNIT_INIT_UNARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(#condition,	       \
+						     expected_true),	       \
+		      fmt,						       \
+		      ##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
+} while (0)
 
 #define KUNIT_TRUE_MSG_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, condition, fmt, ...)       \
 	KUNIT_UNARY_ASSERTION(test,					       \
@@ -581,16 +582,18 @@ do {									       \
 		.right_text = #right,					       \
 	};								       \
 									       \
-	KUNIT_ASSERTION(test,						       \
-			assert_type,					       \
-			__left op __right,				       \
-			assert_class,					       \
-			format_func,					       \
-			KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(&__text,	       \
-							__left,		       \
-							__right),	       \
-			fmt,						       \
-			##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
+	if (likely(__left op __right))					       \
+		break;							       \
+									       \
+	_KUNIT_FAILED(test,						       \
+		      assert_type,					       \
+		      assert_class,					       \
+		      format_func,					       \
+		      KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(&__text,		       \
+						      __left,		       \
+						      __right),		       \
+		      fmt,						       \
+		      ##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
 } while (0)
 
 #define KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(test,				       \
@@ -639,16 +642,19 @@ do {									       \
 		.right_text = #right,					       \
 	};								       \
 									       \
-	KUNIT_ASSERTION(test,						       \
-			assert_type,					       \
-			strcmp(__left, __right) op 0,			       \
-			kunit_binary_str_assert,			       \
-			kunit_binary_str_assert_format,			       \
-			KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(&__text,	       \
-							__left,		       \
-							__right),	       \
-			fmt,						       \
-			##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
+	if (likely(strcmp(__left, __right) op 0))			       \
+		break;							       \
+									       \
+									       \
+	_KUNIT_FAILED(test,						       \
+		      assert_type,					       \
+		      kunit_binary_str_assert,				       \
+		      kunit_binary_str_assert_format,			       \
+		      KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT(&__text,		       \
+						      __left,		       \
+						      __right),		       \
+		      fmt,						       \
+		      ##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
 } while (0)
 
 #define KUNIT_PTR_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG_ASSERTION(test,			       \
@@ -659,15 +665,16 @@ do {									       \
 do {									       \
 	const typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr);				       \
 									       \
-	KUNIT_ASSERTION(test,						       \
-			assert_type,					       \
-			!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__ptr),				       \
-			kunit_ptr_not_err_assert,			       \
-			kunit_ptr_not_err_assert_format,		       \
-			KUNIT_INIT_PTR_NOT_ERR_STRUCT(#ptr,		       \
-						      __ptr),		       \
-			fmt,						       \
-			##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
+	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__ptr))					       \
+		break;							       \
+									       \
+	_KUNIT_FAILED(test,						       \
+		      assert_type,					       \
+		      kunit_ptr_not_err_assert,				       \
+		      kunit_ptr_not_err_assert_format,			       \
+		      KUNIT_INIT_PTR_NOT_ERR_STRUCT(#ptr, __ptr),	       \
+		      fmt,						       \
+		      ##__VA_ARGS__);					       \
 } while (0)
 
 /**
-- 
2.38.0.rc1.362.ged0d419d3c-goog


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-10-01  0:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-01  0:26 [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  0:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] kunit: remove format func from struct kunit_assert, get it to 0 bytes Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  3:26   ` David Gow
2022-10-01  0:26 ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2022-10-01  3:26   ` [PATCH 2/4] kunit: rename base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED David Gow
2022-10-01  3:50     ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  4:13       ` David Gow
2022-10-01  0:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  3:26   ` David Gow
2022-10-01 10:12   ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 17:48     ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  0:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] kunit: declare kunit_assert structs as const Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01  3:26   ` David Gow
2022-10-01 10:06   ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 10:15 ` [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 18:00   ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-18 23:20     ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-18 23:26       ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-18 23:39         ` Miguel Ojeda

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221001002638.2881842-3-dlatypov@google.com \
    --to=dlatypov@google.com \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).