| Message ID | 20250516084233.66594-1-hannelotta@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] selftests: Improve test output grammar, code style | expand |
On 5/16/25 02:42, Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää wrote: > Add small grammar fixes in perf events and Real Time Clock tests' > output messages. > > Include braces around a single if statement, when there are multiple > statements in the else branch, to align with the kernel coding style. This patch combines several changes in one including combining changes to two tests. > > Signed-off-by: Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää <hannelotta@gmail.com> > --- > > Notes: > v1 -> v2: Improved wording in RTC tests based on feedback from > Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> > > tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c | 7 ++++--- > tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 10 +++++----- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > Send separate patches for selftests/perf_events and selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c b/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c > index 49dc1e831174..6176afd4950b 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c > @@ -65,8 +65,9 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) > > child = fork(); > EXPECT_GE(child, 0); > - if (child == 0) > + if (child == 0) { > do_child(); > + } > else if (child < 0) { > perror("fork()"); > goto cleanup; > @@ -75,7 +76,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) > if (waitpid(child, &child_status, WSTOPPED) != child || > !(WIFSTOPPED(child_status) && WSTOPSIG(child_status) == SIGSTOP)) { > fprintf(stderr, > - "failed to sycnhronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", > + "failed to synchronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", This change is good. > errno, > child_status); > goto cleanup; > @@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) > fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, child, -1, -1, > PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC); > if (fd < 0) { > - fprintf(stderr, "failed opening event %llx\n", attr.config); > + fprintf(stderr, "failed to setup performance monitoring %llx\n", attr.config); This change make it hard to understand what went wrong unlike the original message. > goto cleanup; > } > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > index be175c0e6ae3..930bf0ce4fa6 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > @@ -138,10 +138,10 @@ TEST_F_TIMEOUT(rtc, date_read_loop, READ_LOOP_DURATION_SEC + 2) { > rtc_read = rtc_time_to_timestamp(&rtc_tm); > /* Time should not go backwards */ > ASSERT_LE(prev_rtc_read, rtc_read); > - /* Time should not increase more then 1s at a time */ > + /* Time should not increase more than 1s per read */ > ASSERT_GE(prev_rtc_read + 1, rtc_read); > > - /* Sleep 11ms to avoid killing / overheating the RTC */ > + /* Sleep 11ms to avoid overheating the RTC */ This change removes important information. What is the reason for this change? > nanosleep_with_retries(READ_LOOP_SLEEP_MS * 1000000); > > prev_rtc_read = rtc_read; > @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_alm_set) { > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) > SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) > - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute granularity."); > + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute granularity."); > > rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &tm); > ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); > @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_wkalm_set) { > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) > SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); This one still says "alarms" > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) > - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute granularity."); > + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute granularity."); Isn't "alarms" consistent with other messages? > > rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &alarm.time); > ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); > @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (access(rtc_file, R_OK) == 0) > ret = test_harness_run(argc, argv); > else > - ksft_exit_skip("[SKIP]: Cannot access rtc file %s - Exiting\n", > + ksft_exit_skip("Cannot access RTC file %s - exiting\n", > rtc_file); I don't see any reason for this change either. > > return ret; thanks, -- Shuah
Hello, On 5/23/25 01:14, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 5/16/25 02:42, Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää wrote: >> Add small grammar fixes in perf events and Real Time Clock tests' >> output messages. >> >> Include braces around a single if statement, when there are multiple >> statements in the else branch, to align with the kernel coding style. > > This patch combines several changes in one including combining changes > to two tests. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää <hannelotta@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> Notes: >> v1 -> v2: Improved wording in RTC tests based on feedback from >> Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> >> >> tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c | 7 ++++--- >> tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 10 +++++----- >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > Send separate patches for selftests/perf_events and selftests/rtc/rtctest.c Sure, I can do that. If I split this patch into two, is it OK to send the other patch as a new one (without version history)? Or should I send both patches converted to a patch series (v3)? > > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c b/ >> tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c >> index 49dc1e831174..6176afd4950b 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c >> @@ -65,8 +65,9 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) >> child = fork(); >> EXPECT_GE(child, 0); >> - if (child == 0) >> + if (child == 0) { >> do_child(); >> + } >> else if (child < 0) { >> perror("fork()"); >> goto cleanup; >> @@ -75,7 +76,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) >> if (waitpid(child, &child_status, WSTOPPED) != child || >> !(WIFSTOPPED(child_status) && WSTOPSIG(child_status) == >> SIGSTOP)) { >> fprintf(stderr, >> - "failed to sycnhronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", >> + "failed to synchronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", > > This change is good. > >> errno, >> child_status); >> goto cleanup; >> @@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) >> fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, child, -1, -1, >> PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC); >> if (fd < 0) { >> - fprintf(stderr, "failed opening event %llx\n", attr.config); >> + fprintf(stderr, "failed to setup performance monitoring >> %llx\n", attr.config); > > This change make it hard to understand what went wrong unlike the original > message. Okay, in that case I will leave out this change. > >> goto cleanup; >> } >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c b/tools/testing/ >> selftests/rtc/rtctest.c >> index be175c0e6ae3..930bf0ce4fa6 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c >> @@ -138,10 +138,10 @@ TEST_F_TIMEOUT(rtc, date_read_loop, >> READ_LOOP_DURATION_SEC + 2) { >> rtc_read = rtc_time_to_timestamp(&rtc_tm); >> /* Time should not go backwards */ >> ASSERT_LE(prev_rtc_read, rtc_read); >> - /* Time should not increase more then 1s at a time */ >> + /* Time should not increase more than 1s per read */ >> ASSERT_GE(prev_rtc_read + 1, rtc_read); >> - /* Sleep 11ms to avoid killing / overheating the RTC */ >> + /* Sleep 11ms to avoid overheating the RTC */ > > This change removes important information. What is the reason for this > change? Well, it is less verbose and still informative (avoiding overheating). I can leave out this change, though. > >> nanosleep_with_retries(READ_LOOP_SLEEP_MS * 1000000); >> prev_rtc_read = rtc_read; >> @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_alm_set) { >> if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) >> SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); >> if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) >> - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute >> granularity."); >> + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute >> granularity."); >> rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &tm); >> ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); >> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_wkalm_set) { >> if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) >> SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); > > This one still says "alarms" Yes, because "alarms are not supported" refers to alarms as a feature. > >> if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) >> - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute >> granularity."); >> + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute >> granularity."); > > Isn't "alarms" consistent with other messages? Yes, plural "alarms" would be consistent with other messages, and when referring to them as a feature. The verb form should then change, either: - alarm has ... OR - alarms have ... In the test, only one alarm is set - it makes sense to refer to it as singular. I received feedback regarding this from Alexandre, because I had plural form in the first version of this patch. > >> rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &alarm.time); >> ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); >> @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> if (access(rtc_file, R_OK) == 0) >> ret = test_harness_run(argc, argv); >> else >> - ksft_exit_skip("[SKIP]: Cannot access rtc file %s - Exiting\n", >> + ksft_exit_skip("Cannot access RTC file %s - exiting\n", >> rtc_file); > > I don't see any reason for this change either. The function ksft_exit_skip already prints the keyword SKIP. It does not need to be passed as an argument to the function. Without this change the test output shows a duplicate "SKIP": # 1..0 # SKIP [SKIP]: Cannot access rtc file /dev/rtc0 - Exiting With this change applied, the output reads: # 1..0 # SKIP Cannot access RTC file /dev/rtc0 - exiting The duplicate keyword is omitted. It might make sense to have this change in its own patch or patch series, because there are a few other similar occurrences in the test outputs. What do you think? > >> return ret; > > thanks, > -- Shuah Thank you so much! Best regards, Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää
On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 09:27:31PM +0300, Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää wrote: > Hello, > > On 5/23/25 01:14, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 5/16/25 02:42, Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää wrote: > > > Add small grammar fixes in perf events and Real Time Clock tests' > > > output messages. > > > > > > Include braces around a single if statement, when there are multiple > > > statements in the else branch, to align with the kernel coding style. > > > > This patch combines several changes in one including combining changes > > to two tests. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää <hannelotta@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > v1 -> v2: Improved wording in RTC tests based on feedback from > > > Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c | 7 ++++--- > > > tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 10 +++++----- > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > Send separate patches for selftests/perf_events and selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > > Sure, I can do that. If I split this patch into two, is it OK to send the > other patch as a new one (without version history)? Or should I send both > patches converted to a patch series (v3)? Send both patches as a series. > > > > > goto cleanup; > > > } > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c b/tools/testing/ > > > selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > > > index be175c0e6ae3..930bf0ce4fa6 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c > > > @@ -138,10 +138,10 @@ TEST_F_TIMEOUT(rtc, date_read_loop, > > > READ_LOOP_DURATION_SEC + 2) { > > > rtc_read = rtc_time_to_timestamp(&rtc_tm); > > > /* Time should not go backwards */ > > > ASSERT_LE(prev_rtc_read, rtc_read); > > > - /* Time should not increase more then 1s at a time */ > > > + /* Time should not increase more than 1s per read */ > > > ASSERT_GE(prev_rtc_read + 1, rtc_read); > > > - /* Sleep 11ms to avoid killing / overheating the RTC */ > > > + /* Sleep 11ms to avoid overheating the RTC */ > > > > This change removes important information. What is the reason for this > > change? > > Well, it is less verbose and still informative (avoiding overheating). I can > leave out this change, though. s/then/than/ typofix should be kept. > > > > > > nanosleep_with_retries(READ_LOOP_SLEEP_MS * 1000000); > > > prev_rtc_read = rtc_read; > > > @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_alm_set) { > > > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) > > > SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); > > > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) > > > - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute > > > granularity."); > > > + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute > > > granularity."); > > > rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &tm); > > > ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); > > > @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_wkalm_set) { > > > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) > > > SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); > > > > This one still says "alarms" > > Yes, because "alarms are not supported" refers to alarms as a feature. Disambiguate (like "alarms feature is not supported")? > > > > > > if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) > > > - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute > > > granularity."); > > > + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute > > > granularity."); > > > > Isn't "alarms" consistent with other messages? > > Yes, plural "alarms" would be consistent with other messages, and when > referring to them as a feature. The verb form should then change, either: > > - alarm has ... OR > - alarms have ... > > In the test, only one alarm is set - it makes sense to refer to it as > singular. I received feedback regarding this from Alexandre, because I had > plural form in the first version of this patch. I would rather write the message as "Skipping test since the alarm has ..." Thanks.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c b/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c index 49dc1e831174..6176afd4950b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c @@ -65,8 +65,9 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) child = fork(); EXPECT_GE(child, 0); - if (child == 0) + if (child == 0) { do_child(); + } else if (child < 0) { perror("fork()"); goto cleanup; @@ -75,7 +76,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) if (waitpid(child, &child_status, WSTOPPED) != child || !(WIFSTOPPED(child_status) && WSTOPSIG(child_status) == SIGSTOP)) { fprintf(stderr, - "failed to sycnhronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", + "failed to synchronize with child errno=%d status=%x\n", errno, child_status); goto cleanup; @@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ TEST(watermark_signal) fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, child, -1, -1, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC); if (fd < 0) { - fprintf(stderr, "failed opening event %llx\n", attr.config); + fprintf(stderr, "failed to setup performance monitoring %llx\n", attr.config); goto cleanup; } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c index be175c0e6ae3..930bf0ce4fa6 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c @@ -138,10 +138,10 @@ TEST_F_TIMEOUT(rtc, date_read_loop, READ_LOOP_DURATION_SEC + 2) { rtc_read = rtc_time_to_timestamp(&rtc_tm); /* Time should not go backwards */ ASSERT_LE(prev_rtc_read, rtc_read); - /* Time should not increase more then 1s at a time */ + /* Time should not increase more than 1s per read */ ASSERT_GE(prev_rtc_read + 1, rtc_read); - /* Sleep 11ms to avoid killing / overheating the RTC */ + /* Sleep 11ms to avoid overheating the RTC */ nanosleep_with_retries(READ_LOOP_SLEEP_MS * 1000000); prev_rtc_read = rtc_read; @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_alm_set) { if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute granularity."); + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute granularity."); rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &tm); ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ TEST_F(rtc, alarm_wkalm_set) { if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_DISABLED) SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms are not supported."); if (alarm_state == RTC_ALARM_RES_MINUTE) - SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarms has only minute granularity."); + SKIP(return, "Skipping test since alarm has only minute granularity."); rc = ioctl(self->fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &alarm.time); ASSERT_NE(-1, rc); @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) if (access(rtc_file, R_OK) == 0) ret = test_harness_run(argc, argv); else - ksft_exit_skip("[SKIP]: Cannot access rtc file %s - Exiting\n", + ksft_exit_skip("Cannot access RTC file %s - exiting\n", rtc_file); return ret;
Add small grammar fixes in perf events and Real Time Clock tests' output messages. Include braces around a single if statement, when there are multiple statements in the else branch, to align with the kernel coding style. Signed-off-by: Hanne-Lotta Mäenpää <hannelotta@gmail.com> --- Notes: v1 -> v2: Improved wording in RTC tests based on feedback from Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/watermark_signal.c | 7 ++++--- tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 10 +++++----- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)