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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5248b967-2887-2205-3e59-fc067e2ada33@iogearbox.net> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:17:02 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org Cc: davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] selftests/bpf: test_progs: remove global fail/success counts On 8/19/19 9:17 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > Now that we have a global per-test/per-environment state, there > is no longer need to have global fail/success counters (and there > is no need to save/get the diff before/after the test). Thanks for the improvements, just a small comment below, otherwise LGTM. > Introduce QCHECK macro (suggested by Andrii) and covert existing tests > to it. QCHECK uses new test__fail() to record the failure. > > Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> [...] > @@ -96,17 +93,25 @@ extern struct ipv6_packet pkt_v6; > #define _CHECK(condition, tag, duration, format...) ({ \ > int __ret = !!(condition); \ > if (__ret) { \ > - error_cnt++; \ > + test__fail(); \ > printf("%s:FAIL:%s ", __func__, tag); \ > printf(format); \ > } else { \ > - pass_cnt++; \ > printf("%s:PASS:%s %d nsec\n", \ > __func__, tag, duration); \ > } \ > __ret; \ > }) > > +#define QCHECK(condition) ({ \ > + int __ret = !!(condition); \ > + if (__ret) { \ > + test__fail(); \ > + printf("%s:FAIL:%d ", __func__, __LINE__); \ > + } \ > + __ret; \ > +}) I know it's just a tiny nit but the name QCHECK() really doesn't tell me anything if I don't see its definition. Even just a CHECK_FAIL() might be 'better' and more aligned with the CHECK() and CHECK_ATTR() we have, at least I don't think many would automatically derive 'quiet' from the Q prefix [0]. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzbUGiUZBWkTWe2=LfhkXYhQGndN9gR6VTZwfV3eytstUw@mail.gmail.com/ > #define CHECK(condition, tag, format...) \ > _CHECK(condition, tag, duration, format) > #define CHECK_ATTR(condition, tag, format...) \ >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists