Hi Maciej,
On 1/17/2024 12:26 AM, Maciej Wieczór-Retman wrote:
> On 2024-01-08 at 14:42:11 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 12/12/2023 6:52 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>>> +
>>> + if (sparse_masks != ((ecx >> 3) & 1))
>>> + return -1;
>>
>> Can a message be displayed to support the debugging this test failure?
>
> Sure, that is a very good idea. I'll add ksft_perror() here.
I do not think ksft_perror() is appropriate since perror() is for
system error messages (something that sets errno). Perhaps just
ksft_print_msg().
>>> + bit_center = count_bits(full_cache_mask) / 2;
>>> + cont_mask = full_cache_mask >> bit_center;
>>> +
>>> + /* Contiguous mask write check. */
>>> + snprintf(schemata, sizeof(schemata), "%lx", cont_mask);
>>> + ret = write_schemata("", schemata, uparams->cpu, test->resource);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> How will user know what failed? I am seeing this single test exercise a few
>> scenarios
>> and it is not obvious to me if the issue will be clear if this test,
>> noncont_cat_run_test(), fails.
>
> write_schemata() either succeeds with '0' or errors out with a negative
> value. If
> the contiguous mask write fails, write_schemata should print out what was
> wrong
> and I believe that the test will report an error rather than failure.
Right. I am trying to understand whether the user will be able to decipher what
failed
in case there is an error. Seems like in this case the user is expected to look
at the
source code of the test to understand what the test was trying to do at the
time it
encountered the failure. In this case user may be "lucky" that this test only
has
one write_schemata() call _not_ followed by a ksft_print_msg() so user can use
that
reasoning to figure out which write_schemata() failed to further dig what test
was
trying to do.
Reinette
