Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210511220515.4140742-1-dlatypov@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210511220515.4140742-1-dlatypov@google.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45j=_20YRU85bv3Vg4z2DDha=kqQJh-g4tcmjzaMhtv2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lib/test: convert test_overflow.c to use KUnit
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:05 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> This largely consists of:
> * replacing `err |= test_func(...)` calls with `test_func(test, ...)`.
> * changing pr_warn to KUNIT_*_MSG() macros to mark the failed test
> while printing a diagnostic message
> * dropping __init as there are concerns of this causing issues w/ KUnit
> when running on some other arches.
>
> With the exception of now needing to set CONFIG_KUNIT=y, the test can
> still be run as before, at boot time or as a test module.
> But now the output of the test will be TAP (Test Anything Protocol),
> the format used by kselftest instead of just warnings and printing
> "FAIL!" , see [1].
>
> But now the test can also be run more quickly via kunit.py
>
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig /dev/stdin <<EOF
> CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW=y
> EOF
>
> Note: after a mrproper this took
> > Elapsed time: 38.683s total, 3.598s configuring, 32.141s building, 0.000s running
>
> (Normally would be less clunky as you wouldn't use a heredoc).
>
> [1] Here's an example failure message after tweaking the test array:
>   TAP version 14
>   1..1
>       # Subtest: lib_overflow
>       1..10
>       # test_u8_overflow: u8 : 18 arithmetic tests
>       # test_u8_overflow: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/test_overflow.c:251
>       Expected _got == p->sum, but
>           _got == 0
>           p->sum == 1
>   wrong result for 0 + 0 (type u8)
>   ...
>       not ok 1 - test_u8_overflow
>       # test_s8_overflow: s8 : 19 arithmetic tests
>       ok 2 - test_s8_overflow
>   ...
>       # test_overflow_shift: ok: (s32)(0 << 31) == 0
>       # test_overflow_shift: ok: (s64)(0 << 63) == 0
>       ok 9 - test_overflow_shift
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>