On 8/23/19 1:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Brendan,
On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
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>
---
include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++
kunit/Makefile | 1 +
kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/*
+ * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
+ * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
+ */
+
+#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
+#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
+
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+struct kunit;
+
+/**
+ * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
+ * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
+ * @name: the name of the test case.
+ *
+ * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
+ * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
+ * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
+ * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
+ *
+ * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
+ * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
+ * empty test case.
+ *
+ * Example:
Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
and wrap.
None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
they are only 80 chars.
There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
lines in this file.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
confirm either way.
WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
#258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
+ */ \
total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked
Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
it without removing the comment from inside the macro.
I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
in the user documentation.
Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.
Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.
Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
substantial change to make.
There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
complaining and the other is general readability.
So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out
of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it
is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is
probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do
it without just removing the comment entirely).
Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a
kernel-doc comment.
I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we
figure out the column limit issue.
We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in
this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am
fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments.
I think it makes perfect sense.
Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my
local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something
interesting is going on here.
To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue
after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself?
I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this.
Just this patch.
Okay, *that* is super strange!
So I have lines in this patch (01/18) that are exactly 80 char wide
and I was thinking that it might be an off by one issue on either my
workflow or your workflow, but I have lines in other patches that are
exactly 80 char wide and our setups agree that they are fine, so I
really am not sure what's going on here.
It sounds like you are only seeing the issue in only a couple places,
do you mind calling out the specific lines that are problematic?
Take a look at the comment blocks. That is where the problem are.
All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue.
Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon
so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this
figured out pretty quickly.
Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today.
Dang.
thanks,
-- Shuah
