From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
To: brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] kunit: decrease layers of assertion macros
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:35:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220118223506.1701553-1-dlatypov@google.com> (raw)
Note: this series applies on top of the series reducing stack usage,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220113165931.451305-1-dlatypov@google.com/
There's no real smenatic dependency between these, just potential for
merge conflicts.
The current layout of the assertion macros is confusing.
Here's the call chain for KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() and KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG()
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ =>
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => # note: not shared with the _MSG variant
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG =>
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
After this series
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ =>
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG =>
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION =>
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
The current macro layout tries hard to reduce duplication, but comes at
the cost of a lot of intermediates that can simply vanish.
The same call-chain again, but annotated with the info we add:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ => specify we're an EXPECT, not an ASSERT
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION => specify we have a NULL msg
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => specify we work with ints, not ptrs
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION => specify that the op is '=='
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION
We can see that each level of the chain only specifes one parameter at
a time. We've taken the concept of DRY too far.
The following is a full snippet of all the macros needed for
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ, showing that a bit of repetition is just fine:
#define KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_type, \
left, \
op, \
right, \
fmt, \
...) \
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
kunit_binary_assert, \
KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT, \
assert_type, \
left, op, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, left, right) \
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, NULL)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(test, \
KUNIT_EXPECTATION, \
left, ==, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
as opposed to our current DRYer version
#define KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_class, \
ASSERT_CLASS_INIT, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
...) \
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_class, \
ASSERT_CLASS_INIT, \
assert_type, \
left, ==, right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, left, right, fmt, ...)\
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
kunit_binary_assert, \
KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
#define KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, left, right) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
assert_type, \
left, \
right, \
NULL)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, left, right) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
#define KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
KUNIT_EXPECTATION, \
left, \
right, \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
Daniel Latypov (5):
kunit: make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(), etc.
kunit: drop unused intermediate macros for ptr inequality checks
kunit: reduce layering in string assertion macros
kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts
kunit: decrease macro layering for EQ/NE asserts
include/kunit/test.h | 660 ++++++++++---------------------------------
1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 518 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1.703.g22d0c6ccf7-goog
next reply other threads:[~2022-01-18 22:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-18 22:35 Daniel Latypov [this message]
2022-01-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 1/5] kunit: make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(), etc Daniel Latypov
2022-01-21 7:21 ` David Gow
2022-01-21 22:10 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-01-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 2/5] kunit: drop unused intermediate macros for ptr inequality checks Daniel Latypov
2022-01-21 7:21 ` David Gow
2022-01-21 22:12 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-01-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 3/5] kunit: reduce layering in string assertion macros Daniel Latypov
2022-01-21 7:21 ` David Gow
2022-01-21 22:13 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-01-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 4/5] kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts Daniel Latypov
2022-01-21 7:21 ` David Gow
2022-01-21 22:17 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-01-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 5/5] kunit: decrease macro layering for EQ/NE asserts Daniel Latypov
2022-01-21 7:21 ` David Gow
2022-01-21 22:25 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-01-21 22:25 ` Brendan Higgins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220118223506.1701553-1-dlatypov@google.com \
--to=dlatypov@google.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®