On 9/20/24 12:10 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 9/20/24 01:10, David Gow wrote:
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.
I do think it will help to separate the renaming and adding a new test.
It makes it easier to follow.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Hi, Shuah!
The renaming is in the test suite that I'm adding, as suggested by Rae
Moar[1]. I'm not modifying any existing code; all my changes are in the
new code that I'm adding.
I'm sorry, but it isn't clear to me. Could you please provide an example
of what you're suggesting?
Would you prefer that I undo the renaming, submit the patch with the
checkpatch warnings, and then follow up with a new patch to rename the
test cases and resolve the warnings?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903214027.77533-1-arturacb@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mc29a53b120d2f8589f8bd882ab972d15c8a3d202
Thanks for your time,
- Artur
