[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220118223506.1701553-1-dlatypov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:35:01 -0800
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] kunit: decrease layers of assertion macros
Note: this series applies on top of the series reducing stack usage,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220113165931.451305-1-dlatypov@google.com/
There's no real smenatic dependency between these, just potential for
merge conflicts.
The current layout of the assertion macros is confusing.
Here's the call chain for KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() and KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG()
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ =>
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => # note: not shared with the _MSG variant
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG =>
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
After this series
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ =>
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG =>
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
The current macro layout tries hard to reduce duplication, but comes at
the cost of a lot of intermediates that can simply vanish.
The same call-chain again, but annotated with the info we add:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ => specify we're an EXPECT, not an ASSERT
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => specify we have a NULL msg
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => specify we work with ints, not ptrs
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => specify that the op is '=='
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
We can see that each level of the chain only specifes one parameter at
a time. We've taken the concept of DRY too far.
The following is a full snippet of all the macros needed for
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ, showing that a bit of repetition is just fine:
#define KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_type, \
left, \
op, \
right, \
fmt, \
...) \
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
kunit_binary_assert, \
KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT, \
assert_type, \
left, op, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, left, right) \
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, NULL)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(test, \
KUNIT_EXPECTATION, \
left, ==, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
as opposed to our current DRYer version
#define KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_class, \
ASSERT_CLASS_INIT, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
...) \
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_class, \
ASSERT_CLASS_INIT, \
assert_type, \
left, ==, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, left, right, fmt, ...)\
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
kunit_binary_assert, \
KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, left, right) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
NULL)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, left, right) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
KUNIT_EXPECTATION, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
Daniel Latypov (5):
kunit: make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(), etc.
kunit: drop unused intermediate macros for ptr inequality checks
kunit: reduce layering in string assertion macros
kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts
kunit: decrease macro layering for EQ/NE asserts
include/kunit/test.h | 660 ++++++++++---------------------------------
1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 518 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1.703.g22d0c6ccf7-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists