[PATCH v3 4/4] lib: tests: Add sbi_console test
Andrew Jones
ajones at ventanamicro.com
Mon Mar 4 08:33:18 PST 2024
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 03:46:01PM +0000, Ivan Orlov wrote:
> On 3/4/24 13:44, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:00:45PM +0000, Ivan Orlov wrote:
> > > Add the test suite covering some of the functions from
> > > lib/sbi/sbi_console.c: putc, puts and printf. The test covers a variety
> > > of format specifiers for printf and different strings and characters for
> > > putc and puts.
> > >
> > > In order to do that, the test "mocks" the sbi_console_device structure
> > > by setting the 'console_dev' variable to the virtual console.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322 at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > V1 -> V2:
> > > - Rewrite using the carray functionality
> > > - Replace CONSOLE_DO and CONSOLE_DO_RET macros with two inline
> > > functions: one of them "mocks" the default console device, and
> > > the second one restores the old console device.
> > > - Fix codestyle issues (comments, etc.)
> > > - Remove incorrect 'puts' test
> > > - Use updated SBIUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ API
> > > V2 -> V3:
> > > - Remove unused include statement
> > > - Rename "new_dev" => "test_console_dev"
> > > - Use SBIUNIT_END_CASE macro in the test cases list instead of '{}'
> > >
> > > lib/sbi/objects.mk | 1 +
> > > lib/sbi/sbi_console.c | 4 ++
> > > lib/sbi/sbi_console_test.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 lib/sbi/sbi_console_test.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/sbi/objects.mk b/lib/sbi/objects.mk
> > > index b4c273f..9d065fa 100644
> > > --- a/lib/sbi/objects.mk
> > > +++ b/lib/sbi/objects.mk
> > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ libsbi-objs-$(CONFIG_SBIUNIT) += sbi_unit_tests.o
> > > libsbi-objs-$(CONFIG_SBIUNIT) += sbi_bitmap_test.o
> > > carray-sbi_unit_tests-$(CONFIG_SBIUNIT) += bitmap_test_suite
> > > +carray-sbi_unit_tests-$(CONFIG_SBIUNIT) += console_test_suite
> > > libsbi-objs-y += sbi_ecall.o
> > > libsbi-objs-y += sbi_ecall_exts.o
> > > diff --git a/lib/sbi/sbi_console.c b/lib/sbi/sbi_console.c
> > > index ab09a5c..d1229d0 100644
> > > --- a/lib/sbi/sbi_console.c
> > > +++ b/lib/sbi/sbi_console.c
> > > @@ -488,3 +488,7 @@ int sbi_console_init(struct sbi_scratch *scratch)
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SBIUNIT
> > > +#include "sbi_console_test.c"
> > > +#endif
> > > diff --git a/lib/sbi/sbi_console_test.c b/lib/sbi/sbi_console_test.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..734a68c
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/lib/sbi/sbi_console_test.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
> > > +/*
> > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
> > > + *
> > > + * Author: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322 at gmail.com>
> > > + */
> > > +#include <sbi/sbi_unit_test.h>
> > > +
> > > +#define TEST_CONSOLE_BUF_LEN 1024
> > > +
> > > +static const struct sbi_console_device *old_dev;
> > > +static char test_console_buf[TEST_CONSOLE_BUF_LEN];
> > > +static u32 test_console_buf_pos;
> > > +
> > > +static void test_console_putc(char c)
> > > +{
> > > + test_console_buf[test_console_buf_pos] = c;
> > > + test_console_buf_pos = (test_console_buf_pos + 1) % TEST_CONSOLE_BUF_LEN;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void clear_test_console_buf(void)
> > > +{
> > > + test_console_buf_pos = 0;
> > > + test_console_buf[0] = '\0';
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct sbi_console_device test_console_dev = {
> > > + .name = "Test console device",
> > > + .console_putc = test_console_putc,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/* Mock the console device */
> > > +static inline void test_console_begin(const struct sbi_console_device *device)
> > > +{
> > > + old_dev = console_dev;
> > > + console_dev = device;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void test_console_end(void)
> > > +{
> > > + console_dev = old_dev;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void putc_test(struct sbiunit_test_case *test)
> > > +{
> > > + clear_test_console_buf();
> > > +
> >
> > stray blank line
> >
> > > + test_console_begin(&test_console_dev);
> > > + sbi_putc('a');
> > > + test_console_end();
> > > + SBIUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, test_console_buf[0], 'a');
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define PUTS_TEST(test, expected, str) do { \
> > > + clear_test_console_buf(); \
> > > + test_console_begin(&test_console_dev); \
> > > + sbi_puts(str); \
> > > + test_console_end(); \
> > > + SBIUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ(test, test_console_buf, expected, \
> > > + sbi_strlen(expected)); \
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +
> > > +static void puts_test(struct sbiunit_test_case *test)
> > > +{
> > > + PUTS_TEST(test, "Hello, OpenSBI!", "Hello, OpenSBI!");
> > > + PUTS_TEST(test, "Hello,\r\nOpenSBI!", "Hello,\nOpenSBI!");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define PRINTF_TEST(test, expected, format, ...) do { \
> > > + clear_test_console_buf(); \
> > > + test_console_begin(&test_console_dev); \
> > > + size_t __res = sbi_printf(format, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > > + test_console_end(); \
> > > + SBIUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, __res, sbi_strlen(expected)); \
> > > + SBIUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ(test, test_console_buf, expected, \
> > > + sbi_strlen(expected)); \
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +
> > > +static void printf_test(struct sbiunit_test_case *test)
> > > +{
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "Hello", "Hello");
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "3 5 7", "%d %d %d", 3, 5, 7);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "Hello", "%s", "Hello");
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "-1", "%d", -1);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "FF", "%X", 255);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "ff", "%x", 255);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "A", "%c", 'A');
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "1fe", "%p", (void *)0x1fe);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "4294967295", "%u", 4294967295U);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "-2147483647", "%ld", -2147483647l);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "-9223372036854775807", "%lld", -9223372036854775807LL);
> > > + PRINTF_TEST(test, "18446744073709551615", "%llu", 18446744073709551615ULL);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static struct sbiunit_test_case console_test_cases[] = {
> > > + SBIUNIT_TEST_CASE(putc_test),
> > > + SBIUNIT_TEST_CASE(puts_test),
> > > + SBIUNIT_TEST_CASE(printf_test),
> > > + SBIUNIT_END_CASE,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +SBIUNIT_TEST_SUITE(console_test_suite, console_test_cases);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> >
> > Will there ever be a chance that more than one hart will run these tests
> > simultaneously? If so, we need to take a lock in PUTS_TEST and
> > PRINTF_TEST.
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> We call 'run_all_tests' function in 'init_coldboot', which runs on the
> coldboot hart only. If I understand it correctly (maybe I'm wrong), there
> could be only one coldboot hart in the system, so there is no chance that we
> will run tests on two harts simultaneously.
>
> How do you think, should the reason why we don't use locking in the tests be
> documented somewhere? Or maybe we should use the locking anyway, just to
> make it more robust and avoid errors if we decide to run tests on multiple
> cores in the future? (but it is pretty hard for me to imagine why we should
> do that)
>
I'm not sure what's best, since I don't have a good feel for how this test
framework will evolve. I'd vote for adding a lock now, since it won't
hurt.
Thanks,
drew
More information about the opensbi
mailing list