| Message ID | 20240221092728.1281499-7-davidgow@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | ff3b96f2c9e5c24fca12239cd519a8a18569e687 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: Fix printf format specifier issues in KUnit assertions | expand |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:19PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > KUNIT_FAIL() accepts a printf-style format string, but previously did > not let gcc validate it with the __printf() attribute. The use of %lld > for the result of PTR_ERR() is not correct. > > Instead, use %pe and pass the actual error pointer. printk() will format > it correctly (and give a symbolic name rather than a number if > available, which should make the output more readable, too). > > Fixes: b3098d32ed6e ("net: add skb_segment kunit test") > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > --- > net/core/gso_test.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/gso_test.c b/net/core/gso_test.c > index 4c2e77bd12f4..358c44680d91 100644 > --- a/net/core/gso_test.c > +++ b/net/core/gso_test.c > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void gso_test_func(struct kunit *test) > > segs = skb_segment(skb, features); > if (IS_ERR(segs)) { > - KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %lld", PTR_ERR(segs)); > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %pe", segs); > goto free_gso_skb; > } else if (!segs) { > KUNIT_FAIL(test, "no segments"); > -- > 2.44.0.rc0.258.g7320e95886-goog >
Hi, On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:19PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > KUNIT_FAIL() accepts a printf-style format string, but previously did > not let gcc validate it with the __printf() attribute. The use of %lld > for the result of PTR_ERR() is not correct. > > Instead, use %pe and pass the actual error pointer. printk() will format > it correctly (and give a symbolic name rather than a number if > available, which should make the output more readable, too). > > Fixes: b3098d32ed6e ("net: add skb_segment kunit test") > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Looks good. For those wondering, %pe has a special meaning in the kernel which can be seen in lib/vsprintf.c. Reviewed-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> > --- > net/core/gso_test.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/gso_test.c b/net/core/gso_test.c > index 4c2e77bd12f4..358c44680d91 100644 > --- a/net/core/gso_test.c > +++ b/net/core/gso_test.c > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void gso_test_func(struct kunit *test) > > segs = skb_segment(skb, features); > if (IS_ERR(segs)) { > - KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %lld", PTR_ERR(segs)); > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %pe", segs); > goto free_gso_skb; > } else if (!segs) { > KUNIT_FAIL(test, "no segments"); > -- > 2.44.0.rc0.258.g7320e95886-goog > Thanks Justin
diff --git a/net/core/gso_test.c b/net/core/gso_test.c index 4c2e77bd12f4..358c44680d91 100644 --- a/net/core/gso_test.c +++ b/net/core/gso_test.c @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void gso_test_func(struct kunit *test) segs = skb_segment(skb, features); if (IS_ERR(segs)) { - KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %lld", PTR_ERR(segs)); + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "segs error %pe", segs); goto free_gso_skb; } else if (!segs) { KUNIT_FAIL(test, "no segments");
KUNIT_FAIL() accepts a printf-style format string, but previously did not let gcc validate it with the __printf() attribute. The use of %lld for the result of PTR_ERR() is not correct. Instead, use %pe and pass the actual error pointer. printk() will format it correctly (and give a symbolic name rather than a number if available, which should make the output more readable, too). Fixes: b3098d32ed6e ("net: add skb_segment kunit test") Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> --- net/core/gso_test.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)