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

[Marco Elver]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

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