| Message ID | 20240605115448.640717-1-dev.jain@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests: arm64: Fix redundancy of a testcase | expand |
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:24:48PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > Currently, we are writing the same value as we read, into the TLS > register; hence, we cannot confirm updation of the register, making the > testcase "verify_tpidr_one" redundant. Fix this; while at it, do a style > change. Please don't combine unrelated changes into a single patch. > /* ...write a new value.. */ > write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); > - write_val[0] = read_val[0]++; > + write_val[0] = read_val[0] + 1; > ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, child, NT_ARM_TLS, &write_iov); > ksft_test_result(ret == 0, "write_tpidr_one\n"); This is a good fix: Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void test_tpidr(pid_t child) > /* Writing only TPIDR... */ > write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); > memcpy(write_val, read_val, sizeof(read_val)); > - write_val[0] += 1; > + ++write_val[0]; I'm less convinced that this is a good style change.
On 6/5/24 17:30, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:24:48PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: >> Currently, we are writing the same value as we read, into the TLS >> register; hence, we cannot confirm updation of the register, making the >> testcase "verify_tpidr_one" redundant. Fix this; while at it, do a style >> change. > Please don't combine unrelated changes into a single patch. I shall take care of that in the future. > >> /* ...write a new value.. */ >> write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); >> - write_val[0] = read_val[0]++; >> + write_val[0] = read_val[0] + 1; >> ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, child, NT_ARM_TLS, &write_iov); >> ksft_test_result(ret == 0, "write_tpidr_one\n"); > This is a good fix: > > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Thanks! > >> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void test_tpidr(pid_t child) >> /* Writing only TPIDR... */ >> write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); >> memcpy(write_val, read_val, sizeof(read_val)); >> - write_val[0] += 1; >> + ++write_val[0]; > I'm less convinced that this is a good style change. Well, what I have seen usually is, when we add 1, we use prefix/postfix increment, and do a "+=" when it is not 1. But, I get your point: such style may confuse people into thinking that we are doing an index/pointer increment, since that is the usual usecase for this.
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:24:48 +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > Currently, we are writing the same value as we read, into the TLS > register; hence, we cannot confirm updation of the register, making the > testcase "verify_tpidr_one" redundant. Fix this; while at it, do a style > change. > > Applied to arm64 (for-next/kselftest), thanks! I removed the increment style change. [1/1] selftests: arm64: Fix redundancy of a testcase https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/031d1f20d5db
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c index abe4d58d731d..c105703442f9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_tpidr(pid_t child) /* ...write a new value.. */ write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); - write_val[0] = read_val[0]++; + write_val[0] = read_val[0] + 1; ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, child, NT_ARM_TLS, &write_iov); ksft_test_result(ret == 0, "write_tpidr_one\n"); @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void test_tpidr(pid_t child) /* Writing only TPIDR... */ write_iov.iov_len = sizeof(uint64_t); memcpy(write_val, read_val, sizeof(read_val)); - write_val[0] += 1; + ++write_val[0]; ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET, child, NT_ARM_TLS, &write_iov); if (ret == 0) {
Currently, we are writing the same value as we read, into the TLS register; hence, we cannot confirm updation of the register, making the testcase "verify_tpidr_one" redundant. Fix this; while at it, do a style change. Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)