On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 00:01, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/16/24 18:51, Artur Alves wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is part of a hackathon organized by LKCAMP[1], focused on writing > > tests using KUnit. We reached out a while ago asking for advice on what > > would be a useful contribution[2] and ended up choosing data structures > > that did not yet have tests. > > > > This patch adds tests for the llist data structure, defined in > > include/linux/llist.h, and is inspired by the KUnit tests for the doubly > > linked list in lib/list-test.c[3]. > > > > It is important to note that this patch depends on the patch referenced > > in [4], as it utilizes the newly created lib/tests/ subdirectory. > > > > [1] https://lkcamp.dev/about/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zktnt7rjKryTh9-N@arch/ > > [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/list-test.c > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240720181025.work.002-kees@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > --- > > Changes in v3: > > - Resolved checkpatch warnings: > > - Renamed tests for macros starting with 'for_each' > > Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review? > I think that, if this were renaming these in an already existing test (like the confusingly similar list test), then yes. But since it's only a change from v2, I think we're okay. > > - Removed link from commit message > > - Replaced hardcoded constants with ENTRIES_SIZE > > Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review? Again, if we want to change this in other tests (list, hlist) we should split it into a separate patch, but I think it's okay for llist to go in with these already cleaned up. > > > - Updated initialization of llist_node array > > - Fixed typos > > - Update Kconfig.debug message for llist_kunit > > Are these changes to existing code or warnings on your added code? I think these are all changes to the added code since v2. Artur, is that right? > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Add MODULE_DESCRIPTION() > > - Move the tests from lib/llist_kunit.c to lib/tests/llist_kunit.c > > - Change the license from "GPL v2" to "GPL" > > > > Artur Alves (1): > > lib/llist_kunit.c: add KUnit tests for llist > > > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++ > > lib/tests/Makefile | 1 + > > lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 370 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c > > > > You are combining lot of changes in one single patch. Each change as a separate > patch will help reviewers. > > Adding new test should be a separate patch. > > - renaming as a separate patch > I think given that these are just changes between patch versions, not renaming/modifying already committed code, that this is okay to go in as one patch? The actual patch is only doing one thing: adding a test suite for the llist structure. I don't see the point in committing a version of it only to immediately rename things and clean bits up separately in this case. Cheers, -- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
