Às 13:55 de 14/06/21, Daniel Latypov escreveu:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> +config UUID_KUNIT_TEST
>>> + tristate "Unit test for UUID" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>>> + depends on KUNIT
>>> + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>>> + help
>>> + This builds the UUID unit test.
>>
>> Does this first help line really add any value if we have this second
>> line:
>>
>>> + Tests parsing functions for UUID/GUID strings.
>>
>> ?
>>
>>> + If unsure, say N.
>>
>> Not specific to this case, but IMHO we can drop this line for all kunit
>> tests as it is completely obvious.
>>
>>> @@ -354,5 +353,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_UUID_KUNIT_TEST) += test_uuid.o
>>
>> Another meta-comment on the kunit tests: Wouldn't it make more sense
>> to name them all as CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST_FOO to allow for easier grepping?
>
> But putting them in a "kunit namespace" by prefixing them as such
> would be misleading, IMO.
> The tests live adjacent to the code they test and are owned by the
> same maintainers, or at least that's the intent.
>
> And if the goal is just to find configs, then I don't see much
> difference between "config.*KUNIT_TEST" and "config KUNIT_TEST.*"
>
>>
>>> -struct test_uuid_data {
>>> +struct test_data {
>>> const char *uuid;
>>> guid_t le;
>>> uuid_t be;
>>> };
>>>
>>> -static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
>>> +static const struct test_data correct_data[] = {
>>
>> What is the reason for these renames? Is this a pattern used for
>> other kunit tests?
>
> No, this is not a pattern.
> The structs can be renamed back.
>
The idea behind this renaming is to be more explicit about what this
data is about: correct UUIDs inputs.
>>
>>> +static void uuid_correct_le(struct kunit *test)
>>> {
>>> + guid_t le;
>>> + const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);
>>
>> Overly long line. But as far as I can tell there is no need for the
>> case that causes this mess anyway given that param_value is a
>> "const void *".
>
> There is no need for the cast or the brace, yes.
> This is my fault.
>
> The documentation has both since I had thought that would make how it
> works more clear:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/usage.html#parameterized-testing
> I don't really understand my past thought process...
>
Ok, I'll change my code to remove the cast and braces. I can also send a
patch to rework this part of documentation.
>>
>> Same for all the other instances of this.
>>
>>> +static void uuid_wrong_le(struct kunit *test)
>>> {
>>> guid_t le;
>>> + const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);
>>
>> No need for the second pair of braces. Same for various other instances.
