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
next prev 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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.