On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM 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. > >> > >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer, so the spacing here is correct. Thanks, -- Marco > thanks, > -- Shuah
