On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 15:07, Berg, Benjamin <benjamin.berg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 14:45 +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 21:22, <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The existing KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM macro requires a separate function
> > > to
> > > get the description. However, in a lot of cases the description can
> > > just be copied directly from the array. Add a second macro that
> > > avoids having to write a static function just for a single strscpy.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > Looks good to me: this will be much more convenient. The actual
> > implementation looks spot on, just a small comment about the
> > documentation change.
> >
> > It may make sense to write some tests and/or some follow-up patches to
> > existing tests to use this macro, too. I'm just a little wary of
> > introducing something totally unused. (I'm happy to do these myself if
> > you don't have time, though.)
>
> I agree. I am happy to submit one or more patches to change the
> existing users. The question would be how we pull such a change in.
> Should it be submitted separately for each subtree or can we pull them
> all in at the same time here?
>
> Benjamin
>
It depends a little bit on the test being modified: if it rarely sees
conflicting changes, we can pull it in via KUnit, if it's being
actively modified a lot, it's best to send it through separately.
If you're not sure, just include them all in a series here, CC the
test maintainers, and ask what tree they'd prefer it to go in via.
It all usually works out in the end, and worst-case, if we miss one or
two tests, we can update them separately.
Cheers,
-- David
> >
> > Regardless, with the documentation fix, this is:
> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- David
> >
> > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 7 ++++---
> > > include/kunit/test.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> > > b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> > > index c27e1646ecd9..fe8c28d66dfe 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> > > @@ -571,8 +571,9 @@ By reusing the same ``cases`` array from above,
> > > we can write the test as a
> > > {
> > > strcpy(desc, t->str);
> > > }
> > > - // Creates `sha1_gen_params()` to iterate over `cases`.
> > > - KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(sha1, cases, case_to_desc);
> > > + // Creates `sha1_gen_params()` to iterate over `cases`
> > > while using
> > > + // the struct member `str` for the case description.
> > > + KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM_DESC(sha1, cases, str);
> >
> > I'd suggest either getting rid of the case_to_desc function totally
> > here, or show both the manual KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() example, and then
> > point out explicitly that KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM_DESC() can replace it.
> >
> > Otherwise we end up with a vestigial function which doesn't do
> > anything and is confusing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > // Looks no different from a normal test.
> > > static void sha1_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > @@ -588,7 +589,7 @@ By reusing the same ``cases`` array from above,
> > > we can write the test as a
> > > }
> > >
> > > // Instead of KUNIT_CASE, we use KUNIT_CASE_PARAM and pass
> > > in the
> > > - // function declared by KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
> > > + // function declared by KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM or
> > > KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM_DESC.
> > > static struct kunit_case sha1_test_cases[] = {
> > > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(sha1_test, sha1_gen_params),
> > > {}
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > index 68ff01aee244..f60d11e41855 100644
> > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > @@ -1516,6 +1516,25 @@ do
> > > {
> > > \
> > > return
> > > NULL;
> > > \
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM_DESC() - Define test parameter generator from
> > > an array.
> > > + * @name: prefix for the test parameter generator function.
> > > + * @array: array of test parameters.
> > > + * @desc_member: structure member from array element to use as
> > > description
> > > + *
> > > + * Define function @name_gen_params which uses @array to generate
> > > parameters.
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM_DESC(name, array,
> > > desc_member) \
> > > + static const void *name##_gen_params(const void *prev, char
> > > *desc) \
> > > +
> > > {
> > > \
> > > + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ?
> > > ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \
> > > + if (__next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)))
> > > { \
> > > + strscpy(desc, __next->desc_member,
> > > KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE); \
> > > + return
> > > __next; \
> > > +
> > > }
> > > \
> > > + return
> > > NULL;
> > > \
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > // TODO(dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx): consider eventually migrating users
> > > to explicitly
> > > // include resource.h themselves if they need it.
> > > #include <kunit/resource.h>
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > > send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230904132139.103140-1-benjamin%40sipsolutions.net
> > > .
>
> Intel Deutschland GmbH
> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva
> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
> Registered Office: Munich
> Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
