On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 08:25, David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > [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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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. Patch 2 had already had 1 Reviewed-by on v3 that got lost. The core bits of that test haven't changed since then, but I can't tell if it needs a re-review. https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAXuY3o9Xe-atK0Mja6qXLncUhmmVf4pR7hsANsqaoUX71RXVg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks, -- Marco > Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork? > > Cheers, > -- David > > > > -- David > > > > Thanks, > > -- Marco
