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

Shuah Khan
2020-12-02T22:59:26Z

On 12/1/20 4:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM 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.
>>>>
>>>> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
>>>
>>> Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah,
>>> in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
>>>
>>> Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go
>>> ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch
>>> 2/2 later.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>> I am seeing
>>
>> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
>> #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
>> + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
>> (array); \
>> ^
>>
>> Can you look into this and send v10?
>
> This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUMg@mail.gmail.com
>
> checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer,
> so the spacing here is correct.
>

Thank you for confirming. I will apply this.

thanks,
-- Shuah