kernel/linux.git/include/kunit, branch v5.18.2

kunit: cleanup assertion macro internal variables

2022-01-31T18:55:48+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: factor out str constants from binary assertion structs

2022-01-31T18:55:39+00:00

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 = , .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 = , .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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: consolidate KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT macros

2022-01-31T18:55:33+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: remove va_format from kunit_assert

2022-01-31T18:55:27+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: decrease macro layering for EQ/NE asserts

2022-01-25T20:04:50+00:00

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 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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts

2022-01-25T20:04:44+00:00

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 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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: reduce layering in string assertion macros

2022-01-25T20:04:38+00:00

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. 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. 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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: drop unused intermediate macros for ptr inequality checks

2022-01-25T20:04:31+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(), etc.

2022-01-25T20:04:18+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: drop unused assert_type from kunit_assert and clean up macros

2022-01-25T19:50:05+00:00

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan