On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:48 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:36 AM 'Brendan Higgins' via KUnit Development > <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:56:23PM -0700, David Gow wrote: > > > Add some basic sanity-check tests for the fat_checksum() function and > > > the fat_time_unix2fat() and fat_time_fat2unix() functions. These unit > > > tests verify these functions return correct output for a number of test > > > inputs. > > > > > > These tests were inspored by -- and serve a similar purpose to -- the > > ^^^^^^^^ > > I am guessing this is supposed to be "inspired". > > > > Oops -- yup. This is a typo. I can resend a version with this fixed if > you think that makes sense, otherwise I'll just hold it over in case I > need to send out a new version. > > > > timestamp parsing KUnit tests in ext4[1]. > > > > > > Note that, unlike fat_time_unix2fat, fat_time_fat2unix wasn't previously > > > exported, so this patch exports it as well. This is required for the > > > case where we're building the fat and fat_test as modules. > > > > > > [1]: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/ext4/inode-test.c > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Aside from the nit above, and the *potential* nit and question below. > > Everything here looks good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > It's been a while, but this hopefully is a final version of the FAT KUnit > > > patchset. It has a number of changes to keep it up-to-date with current > > > KUnit standards, notably the use of parameterised tests and the addition > > > of a '.kunitconfig' file to allow for easy testing. It also fixes an > > > endianness tagging issue picked up by the kernel test robot under sparse > > > on pa-risc. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -- David > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/fs/fat/fat_test.c b/fs/fat/fat_test.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..febd25f57d4b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/fs/fat/fat_test.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +/* > > > + * KUnit tests for FAT filesystems. > > > + * > > > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC. > > > > Nit: I know you wrote this last year, but I have had other maintainers > > tell me the Copyright date should be set to when the final version of > > the patch is sent out. > > > > I personally don't care, and I don't think you should resend this patch > > just for that, but figured I would mention. > > > > Hmm... I've definitely heard this both ways, but I can easily update > the year if I need to send a new version out. > > > > + * Author: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#include <kunit/test.h> > > > + > > > +#include "fat.h" > > > + > > > +static void fat_checksum_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + /* With no extension. */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("VMLINUX "), (u8)44); > > > + /* With 3-letter extension. */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("README TXT"), (u8)115); > > > + /* With short (1-letter) extension. */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("ABCDEFGHA "), (u8)98); > > > > How do you get the magic values? Or is this just supposed to be a > > regression test? > > This is mainly meant to be a regression test, and the values did > originally come from just running fat_checksum. I have, however, > checked that Windows 98 produces the same values (on a FAT12 > filesystem). All the above sounds good to me. Like I said before, all my comments are pretty minor, I don't think you need to send a new revision for those.
