On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:13:22PM -0700, 'David Gow' via KUnit Development wrote: > Add a KUnit test for the kernel doubly linked list implementation in > include/linux/list.h > > Each test case (list_test_x) is focused on testing the behaviour of the > list function/macro 'x'. None of the tests pass invalid lists to these > macros, and so should behave identically with DEBUG_LIST enabled and > disabled. > > 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). > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> I think I already had a "Reviewed-by and a Tested-by" on this patch. Please make sure to apply the footers to subsequent versions of a patch in the future. > --- > v5 replaces the use of KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() -- to check the > return value from kzalloc() and kmalloc() -- with the __GFP_NOFAIL > arugment. (Both in the list_test_list_init test.) > > Earlier versions of the test can be found: > v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191018215549.65000-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx/ > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191016215707.95317-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx/ > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191010185631.26541-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx/ > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191007213633.92565-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 + > lib/Kconfig.debug | 18 ++ > lib/Makefile | 3 + > lib/list-test.c | 738 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 764 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 lib/list-test.c > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 7ef985e01457..7ced1b69a3d3 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -9504,6 +9504,11 @@ F: Documentation/misc-devices/lis3lv02d.rst > F: drivers/misc/lis3lv02d/ > F: drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c > > +LIST KUNIT TEST > +M: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > +S: Maintained > +F: lib/list-test.c Probably want to have a "mailing list" line. Something like: """ L: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx L: kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx """ > + > LIVE PATCHING > M: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > M: Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index a3017a5dadcd..7991b78eb1f3 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -1961,6 +1961,24 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST > > If unsure, say N. > > +config LIST_KUNIT_TEST > + bool "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" > + depends on KUNIT > + help > + This builds the linked list KUnit test suite. > + It tests that the API and basic functionality of the list_head type > + and associated macros. > + nit: unnecessary tab. > + KUnit tests run during boot and output the results to the debug log > + in TAP format (http://testanything.org/). Only useful for kernel devs > + running the KUnit test harness, and not intended for inclusion into a > + production build. > + > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/. > + > + If unsure, say N. > + > config TEST_UDELAY > tristate "udelay test driver" > help [...] > diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..a6d17647e309 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/list-test.c [...] > +static void list_test_list_entry(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct list_test_struct test_struct; > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct, list_entry(&(test_struct.list), struct list_test_struct, list)); nit: here and elsewhere: over 80 chars. > +} > + > +static void list_test_list_first_entry(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct list_test_struct test_struct1, test_struct2; > + LIST_HEAD(list); > + > + list_add_tail(&test_struct1.list, &list); > + list_add_tail(&test_struct2.list, &list); > + > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct1, list_first_entry(&list, struct list_test_struct, list)); > +} [...] > +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct list_test_struct entries[5], *cur; > + static LIST_HEAD(list); > + int i = 0; > + > + for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) { > + entries[i].data = i; > + list_add_tail(&entries[i].list, &list); > + } > + > + i = 0; > + > + list_for_each_entry(cur, &list, list) { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, cur->data, i); > + i++; > + } > + nit: another unnecessary tab. Looks like you should probably run checkpatch. > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 5); > +} > + > +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct list_test_struct entries[5], *cur; > + static LIST_HEAD(list); > + int i = 0; > + > + for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) { > + entries[i].data = i; > + list_add_tail(&entries[i].list, &list); > + } > + > + i = 4; > + > + list_for_each_entry_reverse(cur, &list, list) { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, cur->data, i); > + i--; > + } > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, -1); > +} [...] Cheers
