Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
approach requires the creation of a test case using the
KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the
previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
---
Changes v8->v9:
- No change to this patch of the patch series
Changes v7->v8:
- Increase KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE to 128
- Format pointer style appropriately
Changes v6->v7:
- Clarify commit message.
- Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters;
if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'.
- Change diagnostic line format to:
# <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>]
Changes v5->v6:
- Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5:
- Update kernel-doc comments.
- Use const void* for generator return and prev value types.
- Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
- Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed
as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup
(init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP
protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of
each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4:
- Rename kunit variables
- Rename generator function helper macro
- Add documentation for generator approach
- Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3:
- Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2:
- Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
Changes v6->v7:
- Clarify commit message.
- Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters;
if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'.
- Change diagnostic line format to:
# <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>]
- Before execution of parameterized test case, count number of
parameters and display number of parameters. Currently also as a
diagnostic line, but this may be used in future to generate a subsubtest
plan. A requirement of this change is that generators must generate a
deterministic number of parameters.
Changes v5->v6:
- Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5:
- Update kernel-doc comments.
- Use const void* for generator return and prev value types.
- Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
- Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed
as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup
(init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP
protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of
each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4:
- Rename kunit variables
- Rename generator function helper macro
- Add documentation for generator approach
- Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3:
- Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2:
- Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
include/kunit/test.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/kunit/test.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
index db1b0ae666c4..27b42a008c7a 100644
--- a/include/kunit/test.h
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ struct kunit;
/* Size of log associated with test. */
#define KUNIT_LOG_SIZE 512
+/* Maximum size of parameter description string. */
+#define KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE 128
+
/*
* TAP specifies subtest stream indentation of 4 spaces, 8 spaces for a
* sub-subtest. See the "Subtests" section in
@@ -107,6 +110,7 @@ struct kunit;
*
* @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
* @name: the name of the test case.
+ * @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests.
*
* A test case is a function with the signature,
* ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
@@ -141,6 +145,7 @@ struct kunit;
struct kunit_case {
void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
const char *name;
+ const void* (*generate_params)(const void *prev, char *desc);
/* private: internal use only. */
bool success;
@@ -163,6 +168,27 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status)
*/
#define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
+/**
+ * KUNIT_CASE_PARAM - A helper for creation a parameterized &struct kunit_case
+ *
+ * @test_name: a reference to a test case function.
+ * @gen_params: a reference to a parameter generator function.
+ *
+ * The generator function::
+ *
+ * const void* gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc)
+ *
+ * is used to lazily generate a series of arbitrarily typed values that fit into
+ * a void*. The argument @prev is the previously returned value, which should be
+ * used to derive the next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial generator
+ * call. When no more values are available, the generator must return NULL.
+ * Optionally write a string into @desc (size of KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE)
+ * describing the parameter.
+ */
+#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \
+ { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
+ .generate_params = gen_params }
+
/**
* struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
*
@@ -208,6 +234,10 @@ struct kunit {
const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
+ /* param_value is the current parameter value for a test case. */
+ const void *param_value;
+ /* param_index stores the index of the parameter in parameterized tests. */
+ int param_index;
/*
* success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
* test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
@@ -1742,4 +1772,25 @@ do { \
fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)
+/**
+ * KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() - Define test parameter generator from an array.
+ * @name: prefix for the test parameter generator function.
+ * @array: array of test parameters.
+ * @get_desc: function to convert param to description; NULL to use default
+ *
+ * Define function @name_gen_params which uses @array to generate parameters.
+ */
+#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array, get_desc) \
+ static const void *name##_gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc) \
+ { \
+ typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \
+ if (__next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array))) { \
+ void (*__get_desc)(typeof(__next), char *) = get_desc; \
+ if (__get_desc) \
+ __get_desc(__next, desc); \
+ return __next; \
+ } \
+ return NULL; \
+ }
+
#endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 750704abe89a..ec9494e914ef 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -325,39 +325,72 @@ static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data)
* occur in a test case and reports them as failures.
*/
static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite,
- struct kunit_case *test_case)
+ struct kunit_case *test_case,
+ struct kunit *test)
{
struct kunit_try_catch_context context;
struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch;
- struct kunit test;
- kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
- try_catch = &test.try_catch;
+ kunit_init_test(test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
+ try_catch = &test->try_catch;
kunit_try_catch_init(try_catch,
- &test,
+ test,
kunit_try_run_case,
kunit_catch_run_case);
- context.test = &test;
+ context.test = test;
context.suite = suite;
context.test_case = test_case;
kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
- test_case->success = test.success;
-
- kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success,
- kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
- test_case->name);
+ test_case->success = test->success;
}
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
{
+ char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE];
struct kunit_case *test_case;
kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
- kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
- kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
+ kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
+ struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
+ bool test_success = true;
+
+ if (test_case->generate_params) {
+ /* Get initial param. */
+ param_desc[0] = '\0';
+ test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
+ }
+
+ do {
+ kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
+ test_success &= test_case->success;
+
+ if (test_case->generate_params) {
+ if (param_desc[0] == '\0') {
+ snprintf(param_desc, sizeof(param_desc),
+ "param-%d", test.param_index);
+ }
+
+ kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
+ KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
+ "# %s: %s %d - %s",
+ test_case->name,
+ kunit_status_to_string(test.success),
+ test.param_index + 1, param_desc);
+
+ /* Get next param. */
+ param_desc[0] = '\0';
+ test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc);
+ test.param_index++;
+ }
+ } while (test.param_value);
+
+ kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success,
+ kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
+ test_case->name);
+ }
kunit_print_subtest_end(suite);
--
2.25.1
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
>
> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> displayed where available.
>
> Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> ---
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
Thanks for sticking with this!
-- David
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> > approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> >
> > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> > displayed where available.
> >
> > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > ---
> [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
>
> This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> both worked fine.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
Thank you!
> Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
> -- David
Thanks,
-- Marco
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> > > approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> > >
> > > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> > > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> > > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> > > displayed where available.
> > >
> > > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> > > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> > > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> > > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
> >
> > This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> > both worked fine.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>
> Thank you!
>
> > Thanks for sticking with this!
>
> Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
>
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Cheers,
-- David
> > -- David
>
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 08:25, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> > > > approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > > > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> > > >
> > > > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > > > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> > > > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> > > > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> > > > displayed where available.
> > > >
> > > > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> > > > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> > > > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> > > > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
> > >
> > > This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> > > both worked fine.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > Thanks for sticking with this!
> >
> > Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
> >
>
> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
> though.
>
> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Patch 2 had already had 1 Reviewed-by on v3 that got lost. The core
bits of that test haven't changed since then, but I can't tell if it
needs a re-review.
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAXuY3o9Xe-atK0Mja6qXLncUhmmVf4pR7hsANsqaoUX71RXVg@mail.gmail.com
Thanks,
-- Marco
> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> > > -- David
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Marco
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> > > > approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > > > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> > > >
> > > > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > > > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> > > > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> > > > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> > > > displayed where available.
> > > >
> > > > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> > > > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> > > > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> > > > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
> > >
> > > This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> > > both worked fine.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > Thanks for sticking with this!
> >
> > Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
> >
>
> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
> though.
>
> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
>
> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
2/2 later.
Cheers
On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
>>>>> approach requires the creation of a test case using the
>>>>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
>>>>>
>>>>> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
>>>>> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
>>>>> generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
>>>>> optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
>>>>> displayed where available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
>>>>> diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
>>>>> TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
>>>>> supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>> [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
>>>>
>>>> This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
>>>> both worked fine.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>>>> Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>> Thanks for sticking with this!
>>>
>>> Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
>>>
>>
>> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
>> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
>> though.
>>
>> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
>>
>> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
>
> Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
> in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
>
> Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
> ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
> 2/2 later.
>
> Cheers
>
I am seeing
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
+ typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
(array); \
^
Can you look into this and send v10?
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> >>>>> approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> >>>>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> >>>>> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> >>>>> generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> >>>>> optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> >>>>> displayed where available.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> >>>>> diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> >>>>> TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> >>>>> supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>> [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
> >>>>
> >>>> This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> >>>> both worked fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> >>>> Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for sticking with this!
> >>>
> >>> Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
> >> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
> >> though.
> >>
> >> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
> >>
> >> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
> >
> > Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
> > in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
> >
> > Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
> > ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
> > 2/2 later.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
> I am seeing
>
> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
> #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
> + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
> (array); \
> ^
>
> Can you look into this and send v10?
This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUMg@mail.gmail.com
checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer,
so the spacing here is correct.
Thanks,
-- Marco
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:22:22PM -0800, 'Brendan Higgins' via KUnit Development wrote:
>
> Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
> in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
>
> Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
> ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
> 2/2 later.
I have been paying attention to this patch series, but I had presumed
that this was much more of a kunit change than an ext4 change, and the
critical bits was a review of the kunit infrastructure. I certainly
have no objection to changing the ext4 test to use the new
parameterized testing, and if you'd like me to give a quick review,
I'll take a quick look. I assume, Brendan, that you've already tried
doing a compile and run test of the patch series, so I'm not going to
do that?
- Ted
On 12/1/20 4:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
>>>>>>> approach requires the creation of a test case using the
>>>>>>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
>>>>>>> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
>>>>>>> generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
>>>>>>> optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
>>>>>>> displayed where available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
>>>>>>> diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
>>>>>>> TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
>>>>>>> supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
>>>>>> both worked fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Tested-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for sticking with this!
>>>>>
>>>>> Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
>>>> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
>>>>
>>>> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
>>>
>>> Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
>>> in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
>>>
>>> Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
>>> ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
>>> 2/2 later.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>> I am seeing
>>
>> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
>> #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
>> + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
>> (array); \
>> ^
>>
>> Can you look into this and send v10?
>
> This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUMg@mail.gmail.com
>
> checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer,
> so the spacing here is correct.
>
Thank you for confirming. I will apply this.
thanks,
-- Shuah