On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:08 AM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:35:58PM -0700, 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> > > > > But a nitpick below, I think that can be fixed later with a follow up > > patch. > > > > > +/** > > > + * struct kunit - represents a running instance of a test. > > > + * @priv: for user to store arbitrary data. Commonly used to pass data created > > > + * in the init function (see &struct kunit_suite). > > > + * > > > + * Used to store information about the current context under which the test is > > > + * running. Most of this data is private and should only be accessed indirectly > > > + * via public functions; the one exception is @priv which can be used by the > > > + * test writer to store arbitrary data. > > > + * > > > + * A brief note on locking: > > > + * > > > + * First off, we need to lock because in certain cases a user may want to use an > > > + * expectation in a thread other than the thread that the test case is running > > > + * in. > > > > This as a prefix to the struct without a lock seems odd. It would be > > clearer I think if you'd explain here what locking mechanism we decided > > to use and why it suffices today. > > Whoops, sorry this should have been in the next patch. Will fix. Err..no, this shouldn't be here at all. Sorry about that. I just need to rewrite the comment. > > > +/** > > > + * suite_test() - used to register a &struct kunit_suite with KUnit. > > > > You mean kunit_test_suite()? > > Yep, sorry about that. Will fix. > > > > + * @suite: a statically allocated &struct kunit_suite. > > > + * > > > + * Registers @suite with the test framework. See &struct kunit_suite for more > > > + * information. > > > + * > > > + * NOTE: Currently KUnit tests are all run as late_initcalls; this means that > > > + * they cannot test anything where tests must run at a different init phase. One > > > + * significant restriction resulting from this is that KUnit cannot reliably > > > + * test anything that is initialize in the late_init phase. > > initialize prior to the late init phase. > > > > > > That is, this is useless to test things running early. > > Yeah, I can add that phrasing in. > > > > + * > > > + * TODO(brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx): Don't run all KUnit tests as late_initcalls. > > > + * I have some future work planned to dispatch all KUnit tests from the same > > > + * place, and at the very least to do so after everything else is definitely > > > + * initialized. > > > > TODOs are odd to be adding to documentation, this is just not common > > place practice. The NOTE should suffice for you. > > Because it is a kernel doc? Would you usually make a separate > non-kernel doc comment for a TODO? I guess that makes sense. > > Thanks!
