[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1442299382.8361.25.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:43:02 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...n.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lib/test-string_helpers.c: add string_get_size()
tests
On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 00:00 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14 2015, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote:
>
Vitaly, thanks for the test cases. My comments below.
> > +static __init void test_string_get_size_one(u64 size, u64
> > blk_size,
> > + const enum
> > string_size_units units,
> > + const char
> > *exp_result)
> > +{
> > + char buf[256];
> > +
> > + string_get_size(size, blk_size, units, buf, sizeof(buf));
> > + if (!strncmp(buf, exp_result, min(sizeof(buf),
> > strlen(exp_result))))
> > + return;
>
> Nits: It probably makes sense to also test that string_get_size
> '\0'-terminates the buffer, so I'd spell this
>
> if (!memcmp(buf, exp_result, min(sizeof(buf),
> strlen(exp_result)+1)))
>
> With a generous stack buffer, that min() will always evaluate to the
> strlen(exp_result)+1. On that note: Maybe 256 is a bit excessive. I
> don't think this will run very deep in the kernel stack, but the code
> might
> get copy-pasted somewhere else. 16 should be plenty.
Agree with Rasmus.
And just to make a side note that useless use of min() since we have
strnlen() :-)
>
> > + pr_warn("Test 'test_string_get_size_one' failed!\n");
> > + pr_warn("string_get_size(size = %llu, blk_size = %llu,
> > units = %d\n",
> > + size, blk_size, units);
>
> [There's probably no pretty way of getting from units to a text
> representation, but it's slightly annoying to have to check the
> source
> for the enum definition to figure out what units=0 or units=1 means.]
>
> > + pr_warn("expected: %s, got %s\n", exp_result, buf);
>
> In case we failed to '\0'-terminate buf, we might want to print it
> with
> "%.*s", (int)sizeof(buf), buf. But maybe I'm just overly paranoid.
I prefer to put '\0' at the position after we expected have an actual
'\0'. In this case we always be NULL terminated. I did this for hexdump
test cases.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists