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

[Daniel Latypov]

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:53 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 2:55 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx

Note: Brendan didn't give an explicit Reviewed-by on the second patch,
not sure if that was intentional.

>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah