| Message ID | 20240827051851.3738533-1-dev.jain@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/arm64: Fix build warnings for abi | expand |
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly > introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to > unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the code is fine as-is. Will
On 8/27/24 18:03, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: >> A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly >> introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to >> unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. > What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the > code is fine as-is. I get a lot of warnings like these: https://www.codedump.xyz/cpp/Zs6d7saC1IRuWV2O > > Will
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > > A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly > > introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to > > unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. > What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the > code is fine as-is. IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which are probably a better choice here.
On 8/28/24 16:31, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:48:51AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: >>> A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly >>> introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to >>> unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. >> What's wrong with using %llx for a uint64_t? I think that part of the >> code is fine as-is. > IIRC there's some printf format specifiers specific to uint64_t which > are probably a better choice here. Well, then I will just send a patch fixing only the %s thing; I don't want to get lost into format specifiers right now :)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c index e4fa507cbdd0..b51d21f78cf9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c @@ -163,10 +163,10 @@ static void test_hw_debug(pid_t child, int type, const char *type_name) static int do_child(void) { if (ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, -1, NULL, NULL)) - ksft_exit_fail_msg("PTRACE_TRACEME", strerror(errno)); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("PTRACE_TRACEME"); if (raise(SIGSTOP)) - ksft_exit_fail_msg("raise(SIGSTOP)", strerror(errno)); + ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise(SIGSTOP)"); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c index d704511a0955..5ec9a18ec802 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static int check_gpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, uint64_t s */ for (i = 9; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gpr_in); i++) { if (gpr_in[i] != gpr_out[i]) { - ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s SVE VL %d mismatch in GPR %d: %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, sve_vl, i, gpr_in[i], gpr_out[i]); errors++; @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static int check_fpr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, if (!sve_vl && !(svcr & SVCR_SM_MASK)) { for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fpr_in); i++) { if (fpr_in[i] != fpr_out[i]) { - ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s Q%d/%d mismatch %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, i / 2, i % 2, fpr_in[i], fpr_out[i]); @@ -294,13 +294,13 @@ static int check_svcr(struct syscall_cfg *cfg, int sve_vl, int sme_vl, int errors = 0; if (svcr_out & SVCR_SM_MASK) { - ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s Still in SM, SVCR %lx\n", cfg->name, svcr_out); errors++; } if ((svcr_in & SVCR_ZA_MASK) != (svcr_out & SVCR_ZA_MASK)) { - ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %llx != %llx\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s PSTATE.ZA changed, SVCR %lx != %lx\n", cfg->name, svcr_in, svcr_out); errors++; }
A "%s" is missing in ksft_exit_fail_msg(); instead, use the newly introduced ksft_exit_fail_perror(). Also, uint64_t corresponds to unsigned 64-bit integer, so use %lx instead of %llx. Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> --- The changes in ptrace.c were earlier a part of the following: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625122408.1439097-6-dev.jain@arm.com/ which were reviewed by Mark. tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/syscall-abi.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)