[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <934dae5f-88af-41a3-9a0e-3aa5311b8f11@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 15:39:47 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Harshal <embedkari167@...il.com>, shuah@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: firmware: Add details in error logging
On 7/14/25 15:26, Harshal wrote:
> Specify details in logs of failed cases
How about changing the above to:
Improve error messages adding details on failuires
>
> Signed-off-by: Harshal <embedkari167@...il.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - revert back to exit() instead of die() to avoid modifying system behaviour
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/c7c071ed-6a4e-4a9c-ba9d-c745fd42c22f@linuxfoundation.org/
> tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_namespace.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_namespace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_namespace.c
> index 04757dc7e546..5b0032498ede 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_namespace.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_namespace.c
> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ static void trigger_fw(const char *fw_name, const char *sys_path)
>
> fd = open(sys_path, O_WRONLY);
> if (fd < 0)
> - die("open failed: %s\n",
> + die("open of sys_path failed: %s\n",
Why not just use sys_path as a input parameter to die()?
> strerror(errno));
> if (write(fd, fw_name, strlen(fw_name)) != strlen(fw_name))
> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> @@ -52,10 +52,10 @@ static void setup_fw(const char *fw_path)
>
> fd = open(fw_path, O_WRONLY | O_CREAT, 0600);
> if (fd < 0)
> - die("open failed: %s\n",
> + die("open of firmware file failed: %s\n",
Why not just use fw_path as a input parameter to die()?
> strerror(errno));
> if (write(fd, fw, sizeof(fw) -1) != sizeof(fw) -1)
> - die("write failed: %s\n",
> + die("write to firmware file failed: %s\n",
Same here
> strerror(errno));
> close(fd);
> }
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static bool test_fw_in_ns(const char *fw_name, const char *sys_path, bool block_
>
> if (block_fw_in_parent_ns)
> if (mount("test", "/lib/firmware", "tmpfs", MS_RDONLY, NULL) == -1)
> - die("blocking firmware in parent ns failed\n");
> + die("blocking firmware in parent namespace failed\n");
>
> child = fork();
> if (child == -1) {
> @@ -99,11 +99,11 @@ static bool test_fw_in_ns(const char *fw_name, const char *sys_path, bool block_
> strerror(errno));
> }
> if (mount(NULL, "/", NULL, MS_SLAVE|MS_REC, NULL) == -1)
> - die("remount root in child ns failed\n");
> + die("remount root in child namespace failed\n");
>
> if (!block_fw_in_parent_ns) {
> if (mount("test", "/lib/firmware", "tmpfs", MS_RDONLY, NULL) == -1)
> - die("blocking firmware in child ns failed\n");
> + die("blocking firmware in child namespace failed\n");
> } else
> umount("/lib/firmware");
>
> @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> die("error: failed to build full fw_path\n");
>
> setup_fw(fw_path);
> -
Why did you remove this line?
> setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IONBF, 0);
> +
Why is this line added
> /* Positive case: firmware in PID1 mount namespace */
> printf("Testing with firmware in parent namespace (assumed to be same file system as PID1)\n");
> if (!test_fw_in_ns(fw_name, sys_path, false))
The rest looks good to me.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists