[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v9 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

Shuah Khan skhan at linuxfoundation.org
Tue Dec 1 22:28:41 UTC 2020

On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <davidgow at google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <elver at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <davidgow at google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi at gmail.com> 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 <98.arpi at gmail.com>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver at google.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver at google.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>> [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 <davidgow at google.com>
>>>> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow at google.com>
>>> 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?

-- Shuah

More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list