There were a couple of errors introuced when
"kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in
c9d80ffc5a.
An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c
file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if
CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using
itself:
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/
[2]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/6IKQX5JXZF7I3NFH4IAWUMHXEQSCPNDP/
[3]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/EKY7ZH5YDCCTSJF2G7XFPMGIXQSUVD3Y/
Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
---
This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to
have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering
suites by names" patch here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit-fixes&id=c9d80ffc5a0a30955de0b8c5c46a05906d417800
Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works
better.
Cheers,
-- David
lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +-
lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 lib/kunit/executor_test.c
diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
index 672f91486d23..acd1de436f59 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static char *kunit_shutdown;
core_param(kunit_shutdown, kunit_shutdown, charp, 0644);
static struct kunit_suite * const *
-+kunit_filter_subsuite(struct kunit_suite * const * const subsuite,
+kunit_filter_subsuite(struct kunit_suite * const * const subsuite,
const char *filter_glob)
{
int i, n = 0;
diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..cdbe54b16501
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * KUnit test for the KUnit executor.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2021, Google LLC.
+ * Author: Daniel Latypov <[email protected]>
+ */
+
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+
+static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free);
+static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test,
+ const char *suite_name);
+
+static void filter_subsuite_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL};
+ struct kunit_suite * const *filtered;
+
+ subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1");
+ subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2");
+
+ /* Want: suite1, suite2, NULL -> suite2, NULL */
+ filtered = kunit_filter_subsuite(subsuite, "suite2*");
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered);
+ kfree_at_end(test, filtered);
+
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered[0]);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)filtered[0]->name, "suite2");
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, filtered[1]);
+}
+
+static void filter_subsuite_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL};
+ struct kunit_suite * const *filtered;
+
+ subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1");
+ subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2");
+
+ filtered = kunit_filter_subsuite(subsuite, "not_found");
+ kfree_at_end(test, filtered); /* just in case */
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, filtered,
+ "should be NULL to indicate no match");
+}
+
+static void kfree_subsuites_at_end(struct kunit *test, struct suite_set *suite_set)
+{
+ struct kunit_suite * const * const *suites;
+
+ kfree_at_end(test, suite_set->start);
+ for (suites = suite_set->start; suites < suite_set->end; suites++)
+ kfree_at_end(test, *suites);
+}
+
+static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ /* Suites per-file are stored as a NULL terminated array */
+ struct kunit_suite *subsuites[2][2] = {
+ {NULL, NULL},
+ {NULL, NULL},
+ };
+ /* Match the memory layout of suite_set */
+ struct kunit_suite * const * const suites[2] = {
+ subsuites[0], subsuites[1],
+ };
+
+ const struct suite_set suite_set = {
+ .start = suites,
+ .end = suites + 2,
+ };
+ struct suite_set filtered = {.start = NULL, .end = NULL};
+
+ /* Emulate two files, each having one suite */
+ subsuites[0][0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite0");
+ subsuites[1][0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1");
+
+ /* Filter out suite1 */
+ filtered = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite0");
+ kfree_subsuites_at_end(test, &filtered); /* let us use ASSERTs without leaking */
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, filtered.end - filtered.start, (ptrdiff_t)1);
+
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered.start);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered.start[0]);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)filtered.start[0][0]->name, "suite0");
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(filter_subsuite_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(filter_subsuite_to_empty_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = {
+ .name = "kunit_executor_test",
+ .test_cases = executor_test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);
+
+/* Test helpers */
+
+static void kfree_res_free(struct kunit_resource *res)
+{
+ kfree(res->data);
+}
+
+/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free).
+ * Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data.
+ */
+static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free)
+{
+ /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free))
+ return;
+ kunit_alloc_and_get_resource(test, NULL, kfree_res_free, GFP_KERNEL,
+ (void *)to_free);
+}
+
+static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test,
+ const char *suite_name)
+{
+ struct kunit_suite *suite;
+
+ /* We normally never expect to allocate suites, hence the non-const cast. */
+ suite = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite), GFP_KERNEL);
+ strncpy((char *)suite->name, suite_name, sizeof(suite->name) - 1);
+
+ return suite;
+}
--
2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog
On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
> There were a couple of errors introuced when
> "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in
> c9d80ffc5a.
>
> An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c
> file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if
> CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
>
> As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using
> itself:
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/
> [2]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/6IKQX5JXZF7I3NFH4IAWUMHXEQSCPNDP/
> [3]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/EKY7ZH5YDCCTSJF2G7XFPMGIXQSUVD3Y/
>
> Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to
> have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering
> suites by names" patch here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit-fixes&id=c9d80ffc5a0a30955de0b8c5c46a05906d417800
>
> Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works
> better.
>
Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:11 AM Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
> > There were a couple of errors introuced when
> > "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in
> > c9d80ffc5a.
> >
> > An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c
> > file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if
> > CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
> >
> > As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using
> > itself:
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/
> > [2]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/6IKQX5JXZF7I3NFH4IAWUMHXEQSCPNDP/
> > [3]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/EKY7ZH5YDCCTSJF2G7XFPMGIXQSUVD3Y/
> >
> > Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names")
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to
> > have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering
> > suites by names" patch here:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit-fixes&id=c9d80ffc5a0a30955de0b8c5c46a05906d417800
> >
> > Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works
> > better.
> >
>
> Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
Hmm, it looks like executor_test.c might not have made it into kunit-fixes.
I believe this is the applied version of this patch:
$ git show d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a --stat
commit d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a
Author: David Gow <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Jun 25 04:16:03 2021 -0700
kunit: Fix merge issue in suite filtering test
...
lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
The result looks like this:
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
...
$ make ARCH=um --jobs=8 O=.kunit
ERROR:root:../lib/kunit/executor.c:140:10: fatal error:
executor_test.c: No such file or directory
140 | #include "executor_test.c"
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just `git am` or something just really doesn't like executor_test.c :)
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> -- Shuah
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/99c2564c-4175-7e3e-84c3-3bcb6d4f9d58%40linuxfoundation.org.
On 6/25/21 11:08 AM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:11 AM Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
>>> There were a couple of errors introuced when
>>> "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in
>>> c9d80ffc5a.
>>>
>>> An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c
>>> file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if
>>> CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
>>>
>>> As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using
>>> itself:
>>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/
>>> [2]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/6IKQX5JXZF7I3NFH4IAWUMHXEQSCPNDP/
>>> [3]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/EKY7ZH5YDCCTSJF2G7XFPMGIXQSUVD3Y/
>>>
>>> Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names")
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to
>>> have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering
>>> suites by names" patch here:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit-fixes&id=c9d80ffc5a0a30955de0b8c5c46a05906d417800
>>>
>>> Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works
>>> better.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
>
> Hmm, it looks like executor_test.c might not have made it into kunit-fixes.
> I believe this is the applied version of this patch:
>
> $ git show d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a --stat
> commit d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a
> Author: David Gow <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Jun 25 04:16:03 2021 -0700
>
> kunit: Fix merge issue in suite filtering test
> ...
> lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> The result looks like this:
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
> ...
> $ make ARCH=um --jobs=8 O=.kunit
> ERROR:root:../lib/kunit/executor.c:140:10: fatal error:
> executor_test.c: No such file or directory
> 140 | #include "executor_test.c"
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> I just `git am` or something just really doesn't like executor_test.c :)
>
>
My mistake it looks like in merging the patch. I had to fix merge
conflicts and made a mistake. I will fix it now.
Odd that my local compile didn't catch the problem. I used the
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py build
thanks,
-- Shuah