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: <20220208040122.695258-1-davidgow@google.com> <20220208040122.695258-3-davidgow@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220208040122.695258-3-davidgow@google.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:44:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxpYuXPavOVOvp07UUhBcrPYH7P5EZKrVOP5WN2s8t3mSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] list: test: Add a test for list_entry_is_head()
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 8:02 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> The list_entry_is_head() macro was added[1] after the list KUnit tests,
> so wasn't tested. Add a new KUnit test to complete the set.
>
> [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e130816164e244b692921de49771eeb28205152d
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Acked-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Similar to the previous patch, we can maybe consider using the _MSG
variants here

> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220205061539.273330-3-davidgow@google.com/
> - Rework the test entirely to better match the improved list_is_head()
>   test.
>
> ---
>  lib/list-test.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c
> index 1960615d1a9f..80dd14c4ca1f 100644
> --- a/lib/list-test.c
> +++ b/lib/list-test.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,22 @@ static void list_test_list_entry(struct kunit *test)
>                                 struct list_test_struct, list));
>  }
>
> +static void list_test_list_entry_is_head(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct list_test_struct test_struct1, test_struct2, test_struct3;
> +
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test_struct1.list);
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test_struct3.list);
> +
> +       list_add_tail(&test_struct2.list, &test_struct1.list);
> +
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct1), &test_struct1.list, list));
> +       /* Non-head element of same list */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct2), &test_struct1.list, list));
> +       /* Head element of different list */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct3), &test_struct1.list, list));

Unlike the list_is_head()
* this macro is marginally more complicated (barely).
* these lines already go over 80 chars.
* macros in EXPECT's get printed out in expanded form (less legible on
their own than a func call is)

So perhaps

KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ..., "Head element of different list")

?

> +}
> +
>  static void list_test_list_first_entry(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>         struct list_test_struct test_struct1, test_struct2;
> @@ -761,6 +777,7 @@ static struct kunit_case list_test_cases[] = {
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_splice_init),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_splice_tail_init),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_entry),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_entry_is_head),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_first_entry),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_last_entry),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_first_entry_or_null),
> --
> 2.35.0.263.gb82422642f-goog
>