diff mbox series

[v2,4/6] kselftest/alsa: mixer-test: Skip write verification for volatile controls

Message ID 20240614153717.30143-5-tiwai@suse.de (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series ALSA: some driver fixes for control input validations | expand

Commit Message

Takashi Iwai June 14, 2024, 3:37 p.m. UTC
The control elements with volatile flag don't guarantee that the
written values are actually saved for the next reads, hence we can't
verify the written values reliably.  Skip the verification after write
tests for those volatile controls for avoiding confusion.

Reported-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1d44be36-9bb9-4d82-8953-5ae2a4f09405@molgen.mpg.de
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Comments

Jaroslav Kysela June 14, 2024, 3:43 p.m. UTC | #1
On 14. 06. 24 17:37, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> The control elements with volatile flag don't guarantee that the
> written values are actually saved for the next reads, hence we can't
> verify the written values reliably.  Skip the verification after write
> tests for those volatile controls for avoiding confusion.
> 
> Reported-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1d44be36-9bb9-4d82-8953-5ae2a4f09405@molgen.mpg.de
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>

Reviewed-by: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>
Mark Brown June 14, 2024, 3:57 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:37:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> @@ -616,6 +616,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
>  	if (!snd_ctl_elem_info_is_readable(ctl->info))
>  		return err;
>  
> +	/* Skip the verification for volatile controls, too */
> +	if (snd_ctl_elem_info_is_volatile(ctl->info))
> +		return err;
> +

I think we should do the checks in test_ctl_get_value() still - a read
and then ctl_value_is_valid() on whatever we read.  It doesn't need to
match the value we wrote but it should still be valid for the control.
Takashi Iwai June 14, 2024, 4:08 p.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:57:37 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:37:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > @@ -616,6 +616,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
> >  	if (!snd_ctl_elem_info_is_readable(ctl->info))
> >  		return err;
> >  
> > +	/* Skip the verification for volatile controls, too */
> > +	if (snd_ctl_elem_info_is_volatile(ctl->info))
> > +		return err;
> > +
> 
> I think we should do the checks in test_ctl_get_value() still - a read
> and then ctl_value_is_valid() on whatever we read.  It doesn't need to
> match the value we wrote but it should still be valid for the control.

So something like below?


Takashi

-- 8< --
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Subject: [PATCH v3] kselftest/alsa: mixer-test: Allow value mismatch for volatile controls

The control elements with volatile flag don't guarantee that the
written values are actually saved for the next reads, hence we can't
verify the written values reliably.  Return as success for volatile
controls even if the value verification after writes fails, in order
to avoid false-positive.

Reported-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1d44be36-9bb9-4d82-8953-5ae2a4f09405@molgen.mpg.de
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
index 1c04e5f638a0..62b77737f0de 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
@@ -668,6 +668,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
 		ksft_print_msg("%s read and written values differ\n",
 			       ctl->name);
 
+	/* Allow difference for volatile controls */
+	if (snd_ctl_elem_info_is_volatile(ctl->info))
+		return 0;
+
 	return -1;
 }
Mark Brown June 14, 2024, 4:28 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 06:08:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:

> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
> @@ -668,6 +668,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
>  		ksft_print_msg("%s read and written values differ\n",
>  			       ctl->name);
>  
> +	/* Allow difference for volatile controls */
> +	if (snd_ctl_elem_info_is_volatile(ctl->info))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	return -1;
>  }

That'll still print the warnings about the values differing and won't
check the values are in range...  I'll send a patch.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
index 1c04e5f638a0..c98167818319 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
@@ -616,6 +616,10 @@  static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
 	if (!snd_ctl_elem_info_is_readable(ctl->info))
 		return err;
 
+	/* Skip the verification for volatile controls, too */
+	if (snd_ctl_elem_info_is_volatile(ctl->info))
+		return err;
+
 	snd_ctl_elem_value_set_id(read_val, ctl->id);
 
 	err = snd_ctl_elem_read(ctl->card->handle, read_val);