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? > 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.
