On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:10 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:27)
> > Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
> > to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
> > and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
> > provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
> > we call them test_modules).
> >
> > Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
> > expectations on code will be defined later.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Minor nits below.
>
> > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..571e4c65deb5c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kunit/test.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> > +static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);
> > +}
> > +
> [...]
> > +
> > +void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name)
> > +{
> > + test->name = name;
> > + test->success = true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Performs all logic to run a test case.
> > + */
> > +static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> > + struct kunit_case *test_case)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit test;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name);
> > +
> > + if (suite->init) {
> > + ret = suite->init(&test);
>
> Can you push the ret definition into this if scope? That way we can
> avoid default initialize to 0 for it.
Sure! I would actually prefer that from a cosmetic standpoint. I just
thought that mixing declarations and code was against the style guide.
> > + if (ret) {
> > + kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret);
> > + kunit_set_failure(&test);
>
> Do we need to 'test_case->success = test.success' here too? Or is the
> test failure extracted somewhere else?
Er, yes. That's kind of embarrassing. Good catch.
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + test_case->run_case(&test);
> > +
> > + if (suite->exit)
> > + suite->exit(&test);
> > +
> > + test_case->success = test.success;
Thanks!
