On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:41 PM Rasmus Villemoes
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 22:53, Tamir Duberstein [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the
top level of the test, e.g.:
      # test_number: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:103
  lib/printf_kunit.c:167: vsnprintf(buf, 256, "%#-12x", ...) wrote '0x1234abcd  ', expected '0x1234abce  '
      # test_number: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/printf_kunit.c:142
  lib/printf_kunit.c:167: kvasprintf(..., "%#-12x", ...) returned '0x1234abcd  ', expected '0x1234abce  '

Actually, I'm not sure that is an improvement as-is, with the two
different line numbers being printed. It takes some thought to
recognize which one is relevant and which one is not.

They're both relevant -- `do_test` does a bunch of checks, so you want
to know which particular check failed, but also which invocation at
the top level resulted in that check failing.

Can't we have a variant of KUNIT_FAIL that allows one to pass the
file/line info when the caller has better info than the location of
the KUNIT_FAIL itself?

quoted

 static void __printf(5, 0)
-do_test(struct kunit *kunittest, int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
-       const char *fmt, va_list ap)
+do_test(struct kunit *kunittest, const char *file, const int line, int bufsize, const char *expect,
+       int elen, const char *fmt, va_list ap)

This can't be right, the __printf attribute must be updated accordingly.

Good catch. Oddly I'm not able to reproduce any compiler complaints
here, even with the attribute completely removed.