pm24.git/include/kunit, branch v6.2-rc3

kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to tests

2022-12-12T21:13:48Z

Create two macros: VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT - A macro that sets symbols to be static if CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled. Otherwise if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled there is no change to the symbol definition. EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(symbol) - Exports symbol into EXPORTED_FOR_KUNIT_TESTING namespace only if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. Must use MODULE_IMPORT_NS(EXPORTED_FOR_KUNIT_TESTING) in test file in order to use symbols. Signed-off-by: Rae Moar Reviewed-by: John Johansen Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: Use the static key when retrieving the current test

2022-12-12T21:13:47Z

In order to detect if a KUnit test is running, and to access its context, the 'kunit_test' member of the current task_struct is used. Usually, this is accessed directly or via the kunit_fail_current_task() function. In order to speed up the case where no test is running, add a wrapper, kunit_get_current_test(), which uses the static key to fail early. Equally, Speed up kunit_fail_current_test() by using the static key. This should make it convenient for code to call this unconditionally in fakes or error paths, without worrying that this will slow the code down significantly. If CONFIG_KUNIT=n (or m), this compiles away to nothing. If CONFIG_KUNIT=y, it will compile down to a NOP (on most architectures) if no KUnit test is currently running. Note that kunit_get_current_test() does not work if KUnit is built as a module. This mirrors the existing restriction on kunit_fail_current_test(). Note that the definition of kunit_fail_current_test() still wraps an empty, inline function if KUnit is not built-in. This is to ensure that the printf format string __attribute__ will still work. Also update the documentation to suggest users use the new kunit_get_current_test() function, update the example, and to describe the behaviour when KUnit is disabled better. Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Sadiya Kazi Signed-off-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: Provide a static key to check if KUnit is actively running tests

2022-12-12T21:13:47Z

KUnit does a few expensive things when enabled. This hasn't been a problem because KUnit was only enabled on test kernels, but with a few people enabling (but not _using_) KUnit on production systems, we need a runtime way of handling this. Provide a 'kunit_running' static key (defaulting to false), which allows us to hide any KUnit code behind a static branch. This should reduce the performance impact (on other code) of having KUnit enabled to a single NOP when no tests are running. Note that, while it looks unintuitive, tests always run entirely within __kunit_test_suites_init(), so it's safe to decrement the static key at the end of this function, rather than in __kunit_test_suites_exit(), which is only there to clean up results in debugfs. Signed-off-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: remove KUNIT_INIT_MEM_ASSERTION macro

2022-12-12T21:13:47Z

Commit 870f63b7cd78 ("kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros") removed all the other macros of this type. But it raced with commit b8a926bea8b1 ("kunit: Introduce KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ macros"), which added another instance. Remove KUNIT_INIT_MEM_ASSERTION and just use the generic KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT macro instead. Rename the `size` arg to avoid conflicts by appending a "_" (like we did in the previous commit). Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros

2022-12-12T21:13:47Z

These macros exist because passing an initializer list to other macros is hard. The goal of these macros is to generate a line like struct $ASSERT_TYPE __assertion = $APPROPRIATE_INITIALIZER; e.g. struct kunit_unary_assertion __assertion = { .condition = "foo()", .expected_true = true }; But the challenge is you can't pass `{.condition=..., .expect_true=...}` as a macro argument, since the comma means you're actually passing two arguments, `{.condition=...` and `.expect_true=....}`. So we'd made custom macros for each different initializer-list shape. But we can work around this with the following generic macro #define KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT(initializers...) { initializers } Note: this has the downside that we have to rename some macros arguments to not conflict with the struct field names (e.g. `expected_true`). It's a bit gross, but probably worth reducing the # of macros. Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: Introduce KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ macros

2022-10-27T08:39:47Z

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, when 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 specified 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. That said, the expectation KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0); would translate to the expectation KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ(test, foo, bar, size); Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: declare kunit_assert structs as const

2022-10-07T16:19:18Z

Everywhere we use the assert structs now takes them via const*, as of commit 7466886b400b ("kunit: take `kunit_assert` as `const`"). So now let's properly declare the structs as const as well. Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: rename base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED

2022-10-07T16:16:45Z

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: remove format func from struct kunit_assert, get it to 0 bytes

2022-10-07T16:16:38Z

Each calll to a KUNIT_EXPECT_*() macro creates a local variable which contains a struct kunit_assert. Normally, we'd hope the compiler would be able to optimize this away, but we've seen cases where it hasn't, see https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/GbrMNej2BAAJ. In changes like commit 21957f90b28f ("kunit: split out part of kunit_assert into a static const"), we've moved more and more parts out of struct kunit_assert and its children types (kunit_binary_assert). This patch removes the final field and gets us to: sizeof(struct kunit_assert) == 0 sizeof(struct kunit_binary_assert) == 24 (on UML x86_64). This also reduces the amount of macro plumbing going on at the cost of passing in one more arg to the base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro and kunit_do_failed_assertion(). Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: make kunit_kfree() only work on pointers from kunit_malloc() and friends

2022-10-07T16:15:44Z

kunit_kfree() exists to clean up allocations from kunit_kmalloc() and friends early instead of waiting for this to happen automatically at the end of the test. But it can be used on *anything* registered with the kunit resource API. E.g. the last 2 statements are equivalent: struct kunit_resource *res = something(); kfree(res->data); kunit_put_resource(res); The problem is that there could be multiple resources that point to the same `data`. E.g. you can have a named resource acting as a pseudo-global variable in a test. If you point it to data allocated with kunit_kmalloc(), then calling `kunit_kfree(ptr)` has the chance to delete either the named resource or to kfree `ptr`. Which one it does depends on the order the resources are registered as kunit_kfree() will delete resources in LIFO order. So this patch restricts kunit_kfree() to only working on resources created by kunit_kmalloc(). Calling it is therefore guaranteed to free the memory, not do anything else. Note: kunit_resource_instance_match() wasn't used outside of KUnit, so it should be safe to remove from the public interface. It's also generally dangerous, as shown above, and shouldn't be used. Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan