Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

Marco Elver
2020-11-24T08:02:35Z

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 08:25, David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This
> > > > approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > > > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> > > >
> > > > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > > > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to
> > > > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also
> > > > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is
> > > > displayed where available.
> > > >
> > > > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in
> > > > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes
> > > > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when
> > > > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
> > >
> > > This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and
> > > both worked fine.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> > > Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > Thanks for sticking with this!
> >
> > Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
> >
>
> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't
> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet,
> though.
>
> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.

Patch 2 had already had 1 Reviewed-by on v3 that got lost. The core
bits of that test haven't changed since then, but I can't tell if it
needs a re-review.

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAXuY3o9Xe-atK0Mja6qXLncUhmmVf4pR7hsANsqaoUX71RXVg@mail.gmail.com

Thanks,
-- Marco

> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> > > -- David
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Marco