Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] Add KUnit tests for llist

Shuah Khan
2024-09-23T15:48:33Z

On 9/20/24 20:49, Artur Alves Cavalcante de Barros wrote:
> On 9/20/24 4:10 AM, David Gow wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 00:01, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> 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@kernel.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, the renaming refers to some test cases from the test suite that I'm adding, with the purpose of resolving some checkpatch warnings, as suggested by Rae Moar's review[1].
>
>>>>           - 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?
>>
>
> This is the case! All changes are in the added code, so it doesn't introduce any checkpatch warnings that were present in v2.
>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
> I'd like to reaffirm that the patch is, in fact, doing one thing: adding tests for the llist data structure. All the changes in V2 and V3 refer to the code that I'm adding. I'm not modifying any existing list tests, only adding new ones.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903214027.77533-1-arturacb@gmail.com/T/#mc29a53b120d2f8589f8bd882ab972d15c8a3d202
>
> Best regards,
> - Artur

Sounds good to me. It was a bit confusing because the v2 and v3 change
new and code which wasn't clear to me.

thanks,
-- Shuah