The `kunit_do_failed_assertion` function passes its
`struct kunit_assert` argument to `kunit_fail`. This one,
in turn, calls its `format` field passing the assert again
as a `const` pointer.
Therefore, the whole chain may be made `const`.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
KUnit's test-managed resources can be created in two ways:
- Using the kunit_add_resource() family of functions, which accept a
struct kunit_resource pointer, typically allocated statically or on
the stack during the test.
- Using the kunit_alloc_resource() family of functions, which allocate a
struct kunit_resource using kzalloc() behind the scenes.
Both of these families of functions accept a 'free' function to be
called when the resource is finally disposed of.
At present, KUnit will kfree() the resource if this 'free' function is
specified, and will not if it is NULL. However, this can lead
kunit_alloc_resource() to leak memory (if no 'free' function is passed
in), or kunit_add_resource() to incorrectly kfree() memory which was
allocated by some other means (on the stack, as part of a larger
allocation, etc), if a 'free' function is provided.
Instead, always kfree() if the resource was allocated with
kunit_alloc_resource(), and never kfree() if it was passed into
kunit_add_resource() by the user. (If the user of kunit_add_resource()
wishes the resource be kfree()ed, they can call kfree() on the resource
from within the 'free' function.
This is implemented by adding a 'should_free' member to
struct kunit_resource and setting it appropriately. To facilitate this,
the various resource add/alloc functions have been refactored somewhat,
making them all call a __kunit_add_resource() helper after setting the
'should_free' member appropriately. In the process, all other functions
have been made static inline functions.
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
KUnit has support for setup/cleanup logic for each test case in a suite.
But it lacks the ability to specify setup/cleanup for the entire suite
itself.
This can be used to do setup that is too expensive or cumbersome to do
for each test.
Or it can be used to do simpler things like log debug information after
the suite completes.
It's a fairly common feature, so the lack of it is noticeable.
Some examples in other frameworks and languages:
* https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#setupclass-and-teardownclass
* https://google.github.io/googletest/reference/testing.html#Test::SetUpTestSuite
Meta:
This is very similar to this patch here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210805043503.20252-3-bvanassche@acm.org/
The changes from that patch:
* pass in `struct kunit *` so users can do stuff like
`kunit_info(suite, "debug message")`
* makes sure the init failure is bubbled up as a failure
* updates kunit-example-test.c to use a suite init
* Updates kunit/usage.rst to mention the new support
* some minor cosmetic things
* use `suite_{init,exit}` instead of `{init/exit}_suite`
* make suite init error message more consistent w/ test init
* etc.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called
kunit_test_init_section_suite(); this new registration macro allows the
registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and
data marked __initdata.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Background:
Currently, a reader looking at kunit/test.h will find the file is quite
long, and the first meaty comment is a doc comment about struct
kunit_resource.
Most users will not ever use the KUnit resource API directly.
They'll use kunit_kmalloc() and friends, or decide it's simpler to do
cleanups via labels (it often can be) instead of figuring out how to use
the API.
It's also logically separate from everything else in test.h.
Removing it from the file doesn't cause any compilation errors (since
struct kunit has `struct list_head resources` to store them).
This commit:
Let's move it into a kunit/resource.h file and give it a separate page
in the docs, kunit/api/resource.rst.
We include resource.h at the bottom of test.h since
* don't want to force existing users to add a new include if they use the API
* it accesses `lock` inside `struct kunit` in a inline func
* so we can't just forward declare, and the alternatives require
uninlining the func, adding hepers to lock/unlock, or other more
invasive changes.
Now the first big comment in test.h is about kunit_case, which is a lot
more relevant to what a new user wants to know.
A side effect of this is git blame won't properly track history by
default, users need to run
$ git blame -L ,1 -C17 include/kunit/resource.h
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Today, when we want to check if a pointer is NULL and not ERR we have
two options:
KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, ptr == NULL);
or
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, ptr, (struct mystruct *)NULL);
Create a new set of macros that take care of NULL checks.
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
All the operands should be tagged `const`.
We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g.
check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple
times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with
`__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user
code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
If the compiler doesn't optimize them away, each kunit assertion (use of
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ, etc.) can use 88 bytes of stack space in the worst and
most common case. This has led to compiler warnings and a suggestion
from Linus to move data from the structs into static const's where
possible [1].
This builds upon [2] which did so for the base struct kunit_assert type.
That only reduced sizeof(struct kunit_binary_assert) from 88 to 64.
Given these are by far the most commonly used asserts, this patch
factors out the textual representations of the operands and comparator
into another static const, saving 16 more bytes.
In detail, KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2 + 2, 5) yields the following struct
(struct kunit_binary_assert) {
.assert = <struct kunit_assert>,
.operation = "==",
.left_text = "2 + 2",
.left_value = 4,
.right_text = "5",
.right_value = 5,
}
After this change
static const struct kunit_binary_assert_text __text = {
.operation = "==",
.left_text = "2 + 2",
.right_text = "5",
};
(struct kunit_binary_assert) {
.assert = <struct kunit_assert>,
.text = &__text,
.left_value = 4,
.right_value = 5,
}
This also DRYs the code a bit more since these str fields were repeated
for the string and pointer versions of kunit_binary_assert.
Note: we could name the kunit_binary_assert_text fields left/right
instead of left_text/right_text. But that would require changing the
macros a bit since they have args called "left" and "right" which would
be substituted in `.left = #left` as `.2 + 2 = \"2 + 2\"`.
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220113165931.451305-6-dlatypov@google.com/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
We currently have 2 other versions of KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT.
The only differences are that
* the format funcition they pass is different
* the types of left_val/right_val should be different (integral,
pointer, string).
The latter doesn't actually matter since these macros are just plumbing
them along to KUNIT_ASSERTION where they will get type checked.
So combine them all into a single KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT that
now also takes the format function as a parameter.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
The concern is that having a lot of redundant fields in kunit_assert can
blow up stack usage if the compiler doesn't optimize them away [1].
The comment on this field implies that it was meant to be initialized
when the expect/assert was declared, but this only happens when we run
kunit_do_failed_assertion().
We don't need to access it outside of that function, so move it out of
the struct and make it a local variable there.
This change also takes the chance to reduce the number of macros by
inlining the now simplified KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT_STRUCT() macro.
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Introduce KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_ASSERTION to match KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION
and make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_PTREQ use these instead of
shared intermediate macros that only remove the need to type "==" or
"!=".
The current macro chain looks like:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
<ditto for NE and ASSERT>
After this change:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Introduce a KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION for the likes of KUNIT_EXPECT_LT.
This is analagous to KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
Note: this patch leaves the EQ/NE macros untouched since those share
some intermediate macros for the pointer-based macros.
The current macro chain looks like:
KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG => KUNIT_BASE_LT_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG => KUNIT_BASE_GT_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
<ditto for LE, GE, and ASSERT variants>
After this change:
KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
I.e. we've traded all the unique intermediary macros for a single shared
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION. The only difference is that users of
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION also need to pass the operation (==, <, etc.).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
The current macro chain looks like:
KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ => KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
KUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ => KUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
<ditto for STR_NE>
After this change:
KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ => KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
KUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ => KUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_STR_ASSERTION.
<ditto for STR_NE>
All the intermediate macro did was pass in "==" or "!=", so it seems
better to just drop them at the cost of a bit more copy-paste.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
We have the intermediate macros for KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_GT() and friends,
but these macros don't exist.
I can see niche usecases for these macros existing, but since we've been
fine without them for so long, let's drop this dead code.
Users can instead cast the pointers and use the other GT/LT macros.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
There's quite a few macros in play for KUnit assertions.
The current macro chain looks like:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
After this change:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ => KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ => KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG => KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION
and we can drop the intermediate KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION.
This change does this for all the other macros as well.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
This field has been split out from kunit_assert to make the struct less
heavy along with the filename and line number.
This change drops the assert_type field and cleans up all the macros
that were plumbing assert_type into kunit_assert.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
This is per Linus's suggestion in [1].
The issue there is that every KUNIT_EXPECT/KUNIT_ASSERT puts a
kunit_assert object onto the stack. Normally we rely on compilers to
elide this, but when that doesn't work out, this blows up the stack
usage of kunit test functions.
We can move some data off the stack by making it static.
This change introduces a new `struct kunit_loc` to hold the file and
line number and then just passing assert_type (EXPECT or ASSERT) as an
argument.
In [1], it was suggested to also move out the format string as well, but
users could theoretically craft a format string at runtime, so we can't.
This change leaves a copy of `assert_type` in kunit_assert for now
because cleaning up all the macros to not pass it around is a bit more
involved.
Here's an example of the expanded code for KUNIT_FAIL():
if (__builtin_expect(!!(!(false)), 0)) {
static const struct kunit_loc loc = { .file = ... };
struct kunit_fail_assert __assertion = { .assert = { .type ... };
kunit_do_failed_assertion(test, &loc, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, &__assertion.assert, ...);
};
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
The `struct kunit* test` field in kunit_assert is unused.
Note: string_stream needs it, but it has its own `test` field. I assume
`test` in `kunit_assert` predates this and was leftover after some
refactoring.
This patch removes the field and cleans up the macros to avoid
needlessly passing around `test`.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Currently the code always calls kunit_do_assertion() even though it does
nothing when `pass` is true.
This change moves the `if(!(pass))` check into the macro instead
and renames the function to kunit_do_failed_assertion().
I feel this a bit easier to read and understand.
This has the potential upside of avoiding a function call that does
nothing most of the time (assuming your tests are passing) but comes
with the downside of generating a bit more code and branches. We try to
mitigate the branches by tagging them with `unlikely()`.
This also means we don't have to initialize structs that we don't need,
which will become a tiny bit more expensive if we switch over to using
static variables to try and reduce stack usage. (There's runtime code
to check if the variable has been initialized yet or not).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Commit 7122debb43 ("kunit: introduce
kunit_kmalloc_array/kunit_kcalloc() helpers") added new functions but
called last arg `flags`, unlike the existing code that used `gfp`.
This only is an issue in test.h, test.c still used `gfp`.
But the documentation was copy-pasted with the old names, leading to
kernel-doc warnings.
Do s/flags/gfp to make the names consistent and fix the warnings.
Fixes: 7122debb43 ("kunit: introduce kunit_kmalloc_array/kunit_kcalloc() helpers")
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Pull KUnit update from Shuah Khan:
"Fixes and features:
- add support for skipped tests
- introduce kunit_kmalloc_array/kunit_kcalloc() helpers
- add gnu_printf specifiers
- add kunit_shutdown
- add unit test for filtering suites by names
- convert lib/test_list_sort.c to use KUnit
- code organization moving default config to tools/testing/kunit
- refactor of internal parser input handling
- cleanups and updates to documentation
- code cleanup related to casts"
* tag 'linux-kselftest-kunit-fixes-5.14-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest: (29 commits)
kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names
kasan: test: make use of kunit_skip()
kunit: test: Add example tests which are always skipped
kunit: tool: Support skipped tests in kunit_tool
kunit: Support skipped tests
thunderbolt: test: Reinstate a few casts of bitfields
kunit: tool: internal refactor of parser input handling
lib/test: convert lib/test_list_sort.c to use KUnit
kunit: introduce kunit_kmalloc_array/kunit_kcalloc() helpers
kunit: Remove the unused all_tests.config
kunit: Move default config from arch/um -> tools/testing/kunit
kunit: arch/um/configs: Enable KUNIT_ALL_TESTS by default
kunit: Add gnu_printf specifiers
lib/cmdline_kunit: Remove a cast which are no-longer required
kernel/sysctl-test: Remove some casts which are no-longer required
thunderbolt: test: Remove some casts which are no longer required
mmc: sdhci-of-aspeed: Remove some unnecessary casts from KUnit tests
iio: Remove a cast in iio-test-format which is no longer required
device property: Remove some casts in property-entry-test
Documentation: kunit: Clean up some string casts in examples
...
The kunit_mark_skipped() macro marks the current test as "skipped", with
the provided reason. The kunit_skip() macro will mark the test as
skipped, and abort the test.
The TAP specification supports this "SKIP directive" as a comment after
the "ok" / "not ok" for a test. See the "Directives" section of the TAP
spec for details:
https://testanything.org/tap-specification.html#directives
The 'success' field for KUnit tests is replaced with a kunit_status
enum, which can be SUCCESS, FAILURE, or SKIPPED, combined with a
'status_comment' containing information on why a test was skipped.
A new 'kunit_status' test suite is added to test this.
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Tested-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
