linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] printf: convert self-test to KUnit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9=T7JJ2W4+fDKeysQ9QOtquMHoGwYU3g8a-A2OJrgL9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:51:43 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, 
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, 
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, 
	Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] printf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:47 PM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > > > I have just quickly tested this before leaving for a week.
> > > > And I am fine with the result.
> > >
>
> Thanks, Petr, for demonstrating how it looks in a failure case.
>
> > > Seems reasonable to me. But I want a consensus with Rasmus.
> >
> > I have a local v4 where I've added the same enhancement as the scanf
> > patches so that assertions log the line in the top-level test.
> >
> > I'll wait for Rasmus' reply before sending.
>
> I think all my concerns are addressed, with the lines printed in case
> of error telling what is wrong and not that memcmp() evaluating to 1
> instead of 0, and with the final free-form comment including that "ran
> 448 tests". If you feel that word is confusing when there's
> "obviously" only 28 "test" being done, feel free to change that to
> "did 448 checks" or "did 448 individual checks" any other better
> wording.
>
> Rasmus

Personally, I don't feel strongly about this wording, so I'm hewing
close to the original:

    ....
    ok 25 flags
    ok 26 errptr
    ok 27 fwnode_pointer
    ok 28 fourcc_pointer
    # printf: ran 448 tests
# printf: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
# Totals: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
ok 1 printf

I'll send v4 momentarily. Thanks, all!