On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:48:37AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:36:33PM -0700, David Gow wrote: > > This change adds a KUnit test for the kernel doubly linked list > > implementation in include/linux/list.h > > > > Note that, at present, it only tests the list_ types (not the > > singly-linked hlist_), and does not yet test all of the > > list_for_each_entry* macros (and some related things like > > list_prepare_entry). > > > > This change depends on KUnit, so should be merged via the 'test' branch: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/log/?h=test > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 + > > lib/Makefile | 3 + > > lib/list-test.c | 711 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 726 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 lib/list-test.c > > Also, I think it might be good to make a MAINTAINERs entry for this > test. Another thought, though maybe this is already covered and I missed the "best practices" notes on naming conventions. As the "one-off" tests are already named "foo_test.c" it seems like KUnit tests should be named distinctly. Should this be lib/kunit-list.c, lib/list-kunit.c, or something else? For internal naming of structs and tests, should things be named "kunit_foo"? Examples here would be kunit_list_struct and kunit_list_test_... When testing other stuff, should only exposed interfaces be tested? Many things have their API exposed via registration of a static structure of function pointers to static functions. What's the proposed best way to get at that? Should the KUnit tests is IN the .c file that declares all the static functions? -- Kees Cook
