> -----Original Message----- > From: Harinder Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > We now have dedicated pages on running tests. Therefore refocus the > usage page on writing tests and add content from tips page and > information on other architectures. > > Signed-off-by: Harinder Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 578 +++++++++++------------- > 3 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 327 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst > index f9f37997b58c..595205348d2d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ How do I use it? > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/architecture.rst - KUnit architecture. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/run_wrapper.rst - run kunit_tool. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/run_manual.rst - run tests without kunit_tool. > -* Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst - KUnit features. > +* Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst - write tests. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/tips.rst - best practices with > examples. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst - KUnit APIs > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > index af13f443c976..a858ab009944 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ Next Steps > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/architecture.rst - KUnit architecture. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/run_wrapper.rst - run kunit_tool. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/run_manual.rst - run tests without kunit_tool. > -* Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst - KUnit features. > +* Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst - write tests. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/tips.rst - best practices with > examples. > * Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst - KUnit APIs > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst > index 63f1bb89ebf5..1847a729daf2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst > @@ -1,57 +1,13 @@ > .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > -=========== > -Using KUnit > -=========== > - > -The purpose of this document is to describe what KUnit is, how it works, how it > -is intended to be used, and all the concepts and terminology that are needed to > -understand it. This guide assumes a working knowledge of the Linux kernel and > -some basic knowledge of testing. > - > -For a high level introduction to KUnit, including setting up KUnit for your > -project, see Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst. > - > -Organization of this document > -============================= > - > -This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Common Patterns. > -The first covers what unit tests are and how to use KUnit to write them. The > -second covers common testing patterns, e.g. how to isolate code and make it > -possible to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable. > - > -Testing > -======= > - > -What is KUnit? > --------------- > - > -"K" is short for "kernel" so "KUnit" is the "(Linux) Kernel Unit Testing > -Framework." KUnit is intended first and foremost for writing unit tests; it is > -general enough that it can be used to write integration tests; however, this is > -a secondary goal. KUnit has no ambition of being the only testing framework for > -the kernel; for example, it does not intend to be an end-to-end testing > -framework. > - > -What is Unit Testing? > ---------------------- > - > -A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is a test that > -tests code at the smallest possible scope, a *unit* of code. In the C > -programming language that's a function. > - > -Unit tests should be written for all the publicly exposed functions in a > -compilation unit; so that is all the functions that are exported in either a > -*class* (defined below) or all functions which are **not** static. > - > Writing Tests > -------------- > +============= > > Test Cases > -~~~~~~~~~~ > +---------- > > The fundamental unit in KUnit is the test case. A test case is a function with > -the signature ``void (*)(struct kunit *test)``. It calls a function to be tested > +the signature ``void (*)(struct kunit *test)``. It calls the function under test > and then sets *expectations* for what should happen. For example: > > .. code-block:: c > @@ -65,18 +21,19 @@ and then sets *expectations* for what should happen. For example: > KUNIT_FAIL(test, "This test never passes."); > } > > -In the above example ``example_test_success`` always passes because it does > -nothing; no expectations are set, so all expectations pass. On the other hand > -``example_test_failure`` always fails because it calls ``KUNIT_FAIL``, which is > -a special expectation that logs a message and causes the test case to fail. > +In the above example, ``example_test_success`` always passes because it does > +nothing; no expectations are set, and therefore all expectations pass. On the > +other hand ``example_test_failure`` always fails because it calls ``KUNIT_FAIL``, > +which is a special expectation that logs a message and causes the test case to > +fail. > > Expectations > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -An *expectation* is a way to specify that you expect a piece of code to do > -something in a test. An expectation is called like a function. A test is made > -by setting expectations about the behavior of a piece of code under test; when > -one or more of the expectations fail, the test case fails and information about > -the failure is logged. For example: > +An *expectation* specifies that we expect a piece of code to do something in a > +test. An expectation is called like a function. A test is made by setting > +expectations about the behavior of a piece of code under test. When one or more > +expectations fail, the test case fails and information about the failure is > +logged. For example: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -86,29 +43,28 @@ the failure is logged. For example: > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1)); > } > > -In the above example ``add_test_basic`` makes a number of assertions about the > -behavior of a function called ``add``; the first parameter is always of type > -``struct kunit *``, which contains information about the current test context; > -the second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be; the > +In the above example, ``add_test_basic`` makes a number of assertions about the > +behavior of a function called ``add``. The first parameter is always of type > +``struct kunit *``, which contains information about the current test context. > +The second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be. The > last value is what the value actually is. If ``add`` passes all of these > expectations, the test case, ``add_test_basic`` will pass; if any one of these > expectations fails, the test case will fail. > > -It is important to understand that a test case *fails* when any expectation is > -violated; however, the test will continue running, potentially trying other > -expectations until the test case ends or is otherwise terminated. This is as > -opposed to *assertions* which are discussed later. > +A test case *fails* when any expectation is violated; however, the test will > +continue to run, and try other expectations until the test case ends or is > +otherwise terminated. This is as opposed to *assertions* which are discussed > +later. > > -To learn about more expectations supported by KUnit, see > -Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst. > +To learn about more KUnit expectations, see Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst. > > .. note:: > - A single test case should be pretty short, pretty easy to understand, > - focused on a single behavior. > + A single test case should be short, easy to understand, and focused on a > + single behavior. > > -For example, if we wanted to properly test the add function above, we would > -create additional tests cases which would each test a different property that an > -add function should have like this: > +For example, if we want to rigorously test the ``add`` function above, create > +additional tests cases which would test each property that an ``add`` function > +should have as shown below: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -134,56 +90,43 @@ add function should have like this: > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MIN, add(INT_MAX, 1)); > } > > -Notice how it is immediately obvious what all the properties that we are testing > -for are. > - > Assertions > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > -KUnit also has the concept of an *assertion*. An assertion is just like an > -expectation except the assertion immediately terminates the test case if it is > -not satisfied. > - > -For example: > +An assertion is like an expectation, except that the assertion immediately > +terminates the test case if the condition is not satisfied. For example: > > .. code-block:: c > > - static void mock_test_do_expect_default_return(struct kunit *test) > + static void test_sort(struct kunit *test) > { > - struct mock_test_context *ctx = test->priv; > - struct mock *mock = ctx->mock; > - int param0 = 5, param1 = -5; > - const char *two_param_types[] = {"int", "int"}; > - const void *two_params[] = {¶m0, ¶m1}; > - const void *ret; > - > - ret = mock->do_expect(mock, > - "test_printk", test_printk, > - two_param_types, two_params, > - ARRAY_SIZE(two_params)); > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret); > - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -4, *((int *) ret)); > + int *a, i, r = 1; > + a = kunit_kmalloc_array(test, TEST_LEN, sizeof(*a), GFP_KERNEL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, a); > + for (i = 0; i < TEST_LEN; i++) { > + r = (r * 725861) % 6599; > + a[i] = r; > + } > + sort(a, TEST_LEN, sizeof(*a), cmpint, NULL); > + for (i = 0; i < TEST_LEN-1; i++) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, a[i], a[i + 1]); > } > > -In this example, the method under test should return a pointer to a value, so > -if the pointer returned by the method is null or an errno, we don't want to > -bother continuing the test since the following expectation could crash the test > -case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us to bail out of the test case if > -the appropriate conditions have not been satisfied to complete the test. > +In this example, the method under test should return pointer to a value. If the > +pointer returns null or an errno, we want to stop the test since the following > +expectation could crash the test case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us > +to bail out of the test case if the appropriate conditions are not satisfied to > +complete the test. > > Test Suites > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -Now obviously one unit test isn't very helpful; the power comes from having > -many test cases covering all of a unit's behaviors. Consequently it is common > -to have many *similar* tests; in order to reduce duplication in these closely > -related tests most unit testing frameworks - including KUnit - provide the > -concept of a *test suite*. A *test suite* is just a collection of test cases > -for a unit of code with a set up function that gets invoked before every test > -case and then a tear down function that gets invoked after every test case > -completes. > - > -Example: > +We need many test cases covering all the unit's behaviors. It is common to have > +many similar tests. In order to reduce duplication in these closely related > +tests, most unit testing frameworks (including KUnit) provide the concept of a > +*test suite*. A test suite is a collection of test cases for a unit of code > +with a setup function that gets invoked before every test case and then a tear > +down function that gets invoked after every test case completes. For example: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -202,23 +145,48 @@ Example: > }; > kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite); > > -In the above example the test suite, ``example_test_suite``, would run the test > -cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``; > -each would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and would > -have ``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it. > +In the above example, the test suite ``example_test_suite`` would run the test > +cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``. Each > +would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and > +``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it. > ``kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite)`` registers the test suite with the > KUnit test framework. > > .. note:: > - A test case will only be run if it is associated with a test suite. > + A test case will only run if it is associated with a test suite. > + > +``kunit_test_suite(...)`` is a macro which tells the linker to put the > +specified test suite in a special linker section so that it can be run by KUnit > +either after ``late_init``, or when the test module is loaded (if the test was > +built as a module). > + > +For more information, see Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst. > + > +Writing Tests For Other Architectures > +------------------------------------- > + > +It is better to write tests that run on UML to tests that only run under a > +particular architecture. It is better to write tests that run under QEMU or > +another easy to obtain (and monetarily free) to obtain software environment You should remove the second "to obtain" above. > +to a specific piece of hardware. > > -``kunit_test_suite(...)`` is a macro which tells the linker to put the specified > -test suite in a special linker section so that it can be run by KUnit either > -after late_init, or when the test module is loaded (depending on whether the > -test was built in or not). > +Nevertheless, there are still valid reasons to write a test that is architecture > +or hardware specific. For example, we might want to test code that really > +belongs in ``arch/some-arch/*``. Even so, try to write the test so that it does > +not depend on physical hardware. Some of our test cases may not need hardware, > +only few tests actually require the hardware to test it. When hardware is not > +available, instead of disabling tests, we can skip them. > > -For more information on these types of things see the > -Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst. > +Now that we have narrowed down exactly what bits are hardware specific, the > +actual procedure for writing and running the tests is same as writing normal > +KUnit tests. > + > +.. important:: > + We may have to reset hardware state. If this is not possible, we may only > + be able to run one test case per invocation. > + > +.. TODO(brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx): Add an actual example of an architecture- > + dependent KUnit test. > > Common Patterns > =============== > @@ -226,43 +194,39 @@ Common Patterns > Isolating Behavior > ------------------ > > -The most important aspect of unit testing that other forms of testing do not > -provide is the ability to limit the amount of code under test to a single unit. > -In practice, this is only possible by being able to control what code gets run > -when the unit under test calls a function and this is usually accomplished > -through some sort of indirection where a function is exposed as part of an API > -such that the definition of that function can be changed without affecting the > -rest of the code base. In the kernel this primarily comes from two constructs, > -classes, structs that contain function pointers that are provided by the > -implementer, and architecture-specific functions which have definitions selected > -at compile time. > +Unit testing limits the amount of code under test to a single unit. It controls > +what code gets run when the unit under test calls a function. Where a function > +is exposed as part of an API such that the definition of that function can be > +changed without affecting the rest of the code base. In the kernel, this comes > +from two constructs: classes, which are structs that contain function pointers > +provided by the implementer, and architecture-specific functions, which have > +definitions selected at compile time. > > Classes > ~~~~~~~ > > Classes are not a construct that is built into the C programming language; > -however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, pretty much every project > -that does not use a standardized object oriented library (like GNOME's GObject) > -has their own slightly different way of doing object oriented programming; the > -Linux kernel is no exception. > +however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, in most cases, every > +project that does not use a standardized object oriented library (like GNOME's > +GObject) has their own slightly different way of doing object oriented > +programming; the Linux kernel is no exception. > > The central concept in kernel object oriented programming is the class. In the > kernel, a *class* is a struct that contains function pointers. This creates a > contract between *implementers* and *users* since it forces them to use the > -same function signature without having to call the function directly. In order > -for it to truly be a class, the function pointers must specify that a pointer > -to the class, known as a *class handle*, be one of the parameters; this makes > -it possible for the member functions (also known as *methods*) to have access > -to member variables (more commonly known as *fields*) allowing the same > -implementation to have multiple *instances*. > - > -Typically a class can be *overridden* by *child classes* by embedding the > -*parent class* in the child class. Then when a method provided by the child > -class is called, the child implementation knows that the pointer passed to it is > -of a parent contained within the child; because of this, the child can compute > -the pointer to itself because the pointer to the parent is always a fixed offset > -from the pointer to the child; this offset is the offset of the parent contained > -in the child struct. For example: > +same function signature without having to call the function directly. To be a > +class, the function pointers must specify that a pointer to the class, known as > +a *class handle*, be one of the parameters. Thus the member functions (also > +known as *methods*) have access to member variables (also known as *fields*) > +allowing the same implementation to have multiple *instances*. > + > +A class can be *overridden* by *child classes* by embedding the *parent class* > +in the child class. Then when the child class *method* is called, the child > +implementation knows that the pointer passed to it is of a parent contained > +within the child. Thus, the child can compute the pointer to itself because the > +pointer to the parent is always a fixed offset from the pointer to the child. > +This offset is the offset of the parent contained in the child struct. For > +example: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -290,8 +254,8 @@ in the child struct. For example: > self->width = width; > } > > -In this example (as in most kernel code) the operation of computing the pointer > -to the child from the pointer to the parent is done by ``container_of``. > +In this example, computing the pointer to the child from the pointer to the > +parent is done by ``container_of``. > > Faking Classes > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > @@ -300,14 +264,11 @@ In order to unit test a piece of code that calls a method in a class, the > behavior of the method must be controllable, otherwise the test ceases to be a > unit test and becomes an integration test. > > -A fake just provides an implementation of a piece of code that is different than > -what runs in a production instance, but behaves identically from the standpoint > -of the callers; this is usually done to replace a dependency that is hard to > -deal with, or is slow. > - > -A good example for this might be implementing a fake EEPROM that just stores the > -"contents" in an internal buffer. For example, let's assume we have a class that > -represents an EEPROM: > +A fake class implements a piece of code that is different than what runs in a > +production instance, but behaves identical from the standpoint of the callers. > +This is done to replace a dependency that is hard to deal with, or is slow. For > +example, implementing a fake EEPROM that stores the "contents" in an > +internal buffer. Assume we have a class that represents an EEPROM: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -316,7 +277,7 @@ represents an EEPROM: > ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count); > }; > > -And we want to test some code that buffers writes to the EEPROM: > +And we want to test code that buffers writes to the EEPROM: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -329,7 +290,7 @@ And we want to test some code that buffers writes to the EEPROM: > struct eeprom_buffer *new_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom); > void destroy_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom); > > -We can easily test this code by *faking out* the underlying EEPROM: > +We can test this code by *faking out* the underlying EEPROM: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -456,14 +417,14 @@ We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``: > destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer); > } > > -Testing against multiple inputs > +Testing Against Multiple Inputs > ------------------------------- > > -Testing just a few inputs might not be enough to have confidence that the code > -works correctly, e.g. for a hash function. > +Testing just a few inputs is not enough to ensure that the code works correctly, > +for example: testing a hash function. > > -In such cases, it can be helpful to have a helper macro or function, e.g. this > -fictitious example for ``sha1sum(1)`` > +We can write a helper macro or function. The function is called for each input. > +For example, to test ``sha1sum(1)``, we can write: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -475,16 +436,15 @@ fictitious example for ``sha1sum(1)`` > TEST_SHA1("hello world", "2aae6c35c94fcfb415dbe95f408b9ce91ee846ed"); > TEST_SHA1("hello world!", "430ce34d020724ed75a196dfc2ad67c77772d169"); > > +Note the use of the ``_MSG`` version of ``KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ`` to print a more > +detailed error and make the assertions clearer within the helper macros. > > -Note the use of ``KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG`` to give more context when it fails > -and make it easier to track down. (Yes, in this example, ``want`` is likely > -going to be unique enough on its own). > +The ``_MSG`` variants are useful when the same expectation is called multiple > +times (in a loop or helper function) and thus the line number is not enough to > +identify what failed, as shown below. > > -The ``_MSG`` variants are even more useful when the same expectation is called > -multiple times (in a loop or helper function) and thus the line number isn't > -enough to identify what failed, like below. > - > -In some cases, it can be helpful to write a *table-driven test* instead, e.g. > +In complicated cases, we recommend using a *table-driven test* compared to the > +helper macro variation, for example: > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -513,17 +473,18 @@ In some cases, it can be helpful to write a *table-driven test* instead, e.g. > } > > > -There's more boilerplate involved, but it can: > +There is more boilerplate code involved, but it can: > + > +* be more readable when there are multiple inputs/outputs (due to field names). > > -* be more readable when there are multiple inputs/outputs thanks to field names, > + * For example, see ``fs/ext4/inode-test.c``. > > - * E.g. see ``fs/ext4/inode-test.c`` for an example of both. > -* reduce duplication if test cases can be shared across multiple tests. > +* reduce duplication if test cases are shared across multiple tests. > > - * E.g. if we wanted to also test ``sha256sum``, we could add a ``sha256`` > + * For example: if we want to test ``sha256sum``, we could add a ``sha256`` > field and reuse ``cases``. > > -* be converted to a "parameterized test", see below. > +* be converted to a "parameterized test". > > Parameterized Testing > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > @@ -531,7 +492,7 @@ Parameterized Testing > The table-driven testing pattern is common enough that KUnit has special > support for it. > > -Reusing the same ``cases`` array from above, we can write the test as a > +By reusing the same ``cases`` array from above, we can write the test as a > "parameterized test" with the following. > > .. code-block:: c > @@ -582,193 +543,160 @@ Reusing the same ``cases`` array from above, we can write the test as a > > .. _kunit-on-non-uml: > > -KUnit on non-UML architectures > -============================== > - > -By default KUnit uses UML as a way to provide dependencies for code under test. > -Under most circumstances KUnit's usage of UML should be treated as an > -implementation detail of how KUnit works under the hood. Nevertheless, there > -are instances where being able to run architecture-specific code or test > -against real hardware is desirable. For these reasons KUnit supports running on > -other architectures. > - > -Running existing KUnit tests on non-UML architectures > ------------------------------------------------------ > +Exiting Early on Failed Expectations > +------------------------------------ > > -There are some special considerations when running existing KUnit tests on > -non-UML architectures: > +We can use ``KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ`` to mark the test as failed and continue > +execution. In some cases, it is unsafe to continue. We can use the > +``KUNIT_ASSERT`` variant to exit on failure. > > -* Hardware may not be deterministic, so a test that always passes or fails > - when run under UML may not always do so on real hardware. > -* Hardware and VM environments may not be hermetic. KUnit tries its best to > - provide a hermetic environment to run tests; however, it cannot manage state > - that it doesn't know about outside of the kernel. Consequently, tests that > - may be hermetic on UML may not be hermetic on other architectures. > -* Some features and tooling may not be supported outside of UML. > -* Hardware and VMs are slower than UML. > +.. code-block:: c > > -None of these are reasons not to run your KUnit tests on real hardware; they are > -only things to be aware of when doing so. > + void example_test_user_alloc_function(struct kunit *test) > + { > + void *object = alloc_some_object_for_me(); > > -Currently, the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) (aka > -kunit_tool) only fully supports running tests inside of UML and QEMU; however, > -this is only due to our own time limitations as humans working on KUnit. It is > -entirely possible to support other emulators and even actual hardware, but for > -now QEMU and UML is what is fully supported within the KUnit Wrapper. Again, to > -be clear, this is just the Wrapper. The actualy KUnit tests and the KUnit > -library they are written in is fully architecture agnostic and can be used in > -virtually any setup, you just won't have the benefit of typing a single command > -out of the box and having everything magically work perfectly. > + /* Make sure we got a valid pointer back. */ > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, object); > + do_something_with_object(object); > + } > > -Again, all core KUnit framework features are fully supported on all > -architectures, and using them is straightforward: Most popular architectures > -are supported directly in the KUnit Wrapper via QEMU. Currently, supported > -architectures on QEMU include: > +Allocating Memory > +----------------- > > -* i386 > -* x86_64 > -* arm > -* arm64 > -* alpha > -* powerpc > -* riscv > -* s390 > -* sparc > +Where you might use ``kzalloc``, you can instead use ``kunit_kzalloc`` as KUnit > +will then ensure that the memory is freed once the test completes. > > -In order to run KUnit tests on one of these architectures via QEMU with the > -KUnit wrapper, all you need to do is specify the flags ``--arch`` and > -``--cross_compile`` when invoking the KUnit Wrapper. For example, we could run > -the default KUnit tests on ARM in the following manner (assuming we have an ARM > -toolchain installed): > +This is useful because it lets us use the ``KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ`` macros to exit > +early from a test without having to worry about remembering to call ``kfree``. > +For example: > > -.. code-block:: bash > +.. code-block:: c > > - tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --timeout=60 --jobs=12 --arch=arm --cross_compile=arm-linux-gnueabihf- > + void example_test_allocation(struct kunit *test) > + { > + char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, 16, GFP_KERNEL); > + /* Ensure allocation succeeded. */ > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, buffer); > > -Alternatively, if you want to run your tests on real hardware or in some other > -emulation environment, all you need to do is to take your kunitconfig, your > -Kconfig options for the tests you would like to run, and merge them into > -whatever config your are using for your platform. That's it! > + KUNIT_ASSERT_STREQ(test, buffer, ""); > + } > > -For example, let's say you have the following kunitconfig: > > -.. code-block:: none > +Testing Static Functions > +------------------------ > > - CONFIG_KUNIT=y > - CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y > +If we do not want to expose functions or variables for testing, one option is to > +conditionally ``#include`` the test file at the end of your .c file. For > +example: > > -If you wanted to run this test on an x86 VM, you might add the following config > -options to your ``.config``: > +.. code-block:: c > > -.. code-block:: none > + /* In my_file.c */ > > - CONFIG_KUNIT=y > - CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y > - CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y > - CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y > + static int do_interesting_thing(); > > -All these new options do is enable support for a common serial console needed > -for logging. > + #ifdef CONFIG_MY_KUNIT_TEST > + #include "my_kunit_test.c" > + #endif > > -Next, you could build a kernel with these tests as follows: > +Injecting Test-Only Code > +------------------------ > > +Similar to as shown above, we can add test-specific logic. For example: > > -.. code-block:: bash > +.. code-block:: c > > - make ARCH=x86 olddefconfig > - make ARCH=x86 > + /* In my_file.h */ > > -Once you have built a kernel, you could run it on QEMU as follows: > + #ifdef CONFIG_MY_KUNIT_TEST > + /* Defined in my_kunit_test.c */ > + void test_only_hook(void); > + #else > + void test_only_hook(void) { } > + #endif > > -.. code-block:: bash > +This test-only code can be made more useful by accessing the current ``kunit_test`` > +as shown in next section: *Accessing The Current Test*. > > - qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm \ > - -m 1024 \ > - -kernel arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage \ > - -append 'console=ttyS0' \ > - --nographic > +Accessing The Current Test > +-------------------------- > > -Interspersed in the kernel logs you might see the following: > +In some cases, we need to call test-only code from outside the test file. > +For example, see example in section *Injecting Test-Only Code* or if > +we are providing a fake implementation of an ops struct. Using > +``kunit_test`` field in ``task_struct``, we can access it via > +``current->kunit_test``. > > -.. code-block:: none > +The example below includes how to implement "mocking": > > - TAP version 14 > - # Subtest: example > - 1..1 > - # example_simple_test: initializing > - ok 1 - example_simple_test > - ok 1 - example > +.. code-block:: c > > -Congratulations, you just ran a KUnit test on the x86 architecture! > + #include <linux/sched.h> /* for current */ > > -In a similar manner, kunit and kunit tests can also be built as modules, > -so if you wanted to run tests in this way you might add the following config > -options to your ``.config``: > + struct test_data { > + int foo_result; > + int want_foo_called_with; > + }; > > -.. code-block:: none > + static int fake_foo(int arg) > + { > + struct kunit *test = current->kunit_test; > + struct test_data *test_data = test->priv; > > - CONFIG_KUNIT=m > - CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=m > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_data->want_foo_called_with, arg); > + return test_data->foo_result; > + } > > -Once the kernel is built and installed, a simple > + static void example_simple_test(struct kunit *test) > + { > + /* Assume priv (private, a member used to pass test data from > + * the init function) is allocated in the suite's .init */ > + struct test_data *test_data = test->priv; > > -.. code-block:: bash > + test_data->foo_result = 42; > + test_data->want_foo_called_with = 1; > > - modprobe example-test > + /* In a real test, we'd probably pass a pointer to fake_foo somewhere > + * like an ops struct, etc. instead of calling it directly. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_foo(1), 42); > + } > > -...will run the tests. > +In this example, we are using the ``priv`` member of ``struct kunit`` as a way > +of passing data to the test from the init function. In general ``priv`` is > +pointer that can be used for any user data. This is preferred over static > +variables, as it avoids concurrency issues. > > -.. note:: > - Note that you should make sure your test depends on ``KUNIT=y`` in Kconfig > - if the test does not support module build. Otherwise, it will trigger > - compile errors if ``CONFIG_KUNIT`` is ``m``. > +Had we wanted something more flexible, we could have used a named ``kunit_resource``. > +Each test can have multiple resources which have string names providing the same > +flexibility as a ``priv`` member, but also, for example, allowing helper > +functions to create resources without conflicting with each other. It is also > +possible to define a clean up function for each resource, making it easy to > +avoid resource leaks. For more information, see Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst. This is much clearer. Thanks. > > -Writing new tests for other architectures > ------------------------------------------ > +Failing The Current Test > +------------------------ > > -The first thing you must do is ask yourself whether it is necessary to write a > -KUnit test for a specific architecture, and then whether it is necessary to > -write that test for a particular piece of hardware. In general, writing a test > -that depends on having access to a particular piece of hardware or software (not > -included in the Linux source repo) should be avoided at all costs. > +If we want to fail the current test, we can use ``kunit_fail_current_test(fmt, args...)`` > +which is defined in ``<kunit/test-bug.h>`` and does not require pulling in ``<kunit/test.h>``. > +For example, we have an option to enable some extra debug checks on some data > +structures as shown below: > > -Even if you only ever plan on running your KUnit test on your hardware > -configuration, other people may want to run your tests and may not have access > -to your hardware. If you write your test to run on UML, then anyone can run your > -tests without knowing anything about your particular setup, and you can still > -run your tests on your hardware setup just by compiling for your architecture. > +.. code-block:: c > > -.. important:: > - Always prefer tests that run on UML to tests that only run under a particular > - architecture, and always prefer tests that run under QEMU or another easy > - (and monetarily free) to obtain software environment to a specific piece of > - hardware. > - > -Nevertheless, there are still valid reasons to write an architecture or hardware > -specific test: for example, you might want to test some code that really belongs > -in ``arch/some-arch/*``. Even so, try your best to write the test so that it > -does not depend on physical hardware: if some of your test cases don't need the > -hardware, only require the hardware for tests that actually need it. > - > -Now that you have narrowed down exactly what bits are hardware specific, the > -actual procedure for writing and running the tests is pretty much the same as > -writing normal KUnit tests. One special caveat is that you have to reset > -hardware state in between test cases; if this is not possible, you may only be > -able to run one test case per invocation. > + #include <kunit/test-bug.h> > > -.. TODO(brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx): Add an actual example of an architecture- > - dependent KUnit test. > + #ifdef CONFIG_EXTRA_DEBUG_CHECKS > + static void validate_my_data(struct data *data) > + { > + if (is_valid(data)) > + return; > > -KUnit debugfs representation > -============================ > -When kunit test suites are initialized, they create an associated directory > -in ``/sys/kernel/debug/kunit/<test-suite>``. The directory contains one file > + kunit_fail_current_test("data %p is invalid", data); > > -- results: "cat results" displays results of each test case and the results > - of the entire suite for the last test run. > + /* Normal, non-KUnit, error reporting code here. */ > + } > + #else > + static void my_debug_function(void) { } > + #endif > > -The debugfs representation is primarily of use when kunit test suites are > -run in a native environment, either as modules or builtin. Having a way > -to display results like this is valuable as otherwise results can be > -intermixed with other events in dmesg output. The maximum size of each > -results file is KUNIT_LOG_SIZE bytes (defined in ``include/kunit/test.h``). > -- > 2.34.1.173.g76aa8bc2d0-goog With the one suggested change, you can add Reviewed-by: for me. I did a quick pass over patches 1-4 (in this v3 series), and didn't see any issues. -- Tim
