linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
@ 2020-10-23 15:05 Arpitha Raghunandan
  2020-10-23 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature Arpitha Raghunandan
  2020-10-23 18:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Marco Elver
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arpitha Raghunandan @ 2020-10-23 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: brendanhiggins, skhan, elver, yzaikin, tytso, adilger.kernel
  Cc: Arpitha Raghunandan, linux-kselftest, kunit-dev, linux-kernel,
	linux-kernel-mentees, linux-ext4

Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.

Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
---
Changes v1->v2:
- Use of a generator method to access test case parameters

 include/kunit/test.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/kunit/test.c     | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
index a423fffefea0..c417ac140326 100644
--- a/include/kunit/test.h
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct kunit;
 struct kunit_case {
 	void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
 	const char *name;
+	void* (*generate_params)(struct kunit *test, void *prev);
 
 	/* private: internal use only. */
 	bool success;
@@ -162,6 +163,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status)
  * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it.
  */
 #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
+#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params)			\
+		{ .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name,	\
+		  .generate_params = gen_params }
 
 /**
  * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
@@ -208,6 +212,15 @@ struct kunit {
 	const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
 	char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
 	struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
+	/* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
+	void *param_values;
+	/*
+	 * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
+	 * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
+	 * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
+	 * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
+	 */
+	int current_param;
 	/*
 	 * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
 	 * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
@@ -1742,4 +1755,36 @@ do {									       \
 						fmt,			       \
 						##__VA_ARGS__)
 
+/**
+ * kunit_param_generator_helper() - Helper method for test parameter generators
+ * 				    required in parameterized tests.
+ * @test: The test context object.
+ * @prev_param: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
+ * @param_array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
+ * @array_size: number of test parameters in the array.
+ * @type_size: size of one test parameter.
+ */
+static inline void *kunit_param_generator_helper(struct kunit *test,
+					void *prev_param,
+					void *param_array,
+					size_t array_size,
+					size_t type_size)
+{
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (prev_param - param_array) % type_size, 0);
+
+	if (!prev_param)
+		return param_array;
+
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, prev_param, param_array);
+
+	if (prev_param + type_size < param_array + (array_size * type_size))
+		return prev_param + type_size;
+	else
+		return NULL;
+}
+
+#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER(test, prev_param, param_array, param_type) \
+	kunit_param_generator_helper(test, prev_param, param_array,		\
+				ARRAY_SIZE(param_array), sizeof(param_type))
+
 #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 750704abe89a..0e6ffe6384a7 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
 
+static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
+}
+
 static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
 				      struct string_stream *stream)
 {
@@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
 	assert->format(assert, stream);
 
 	kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
+	if (test->param_values)
+		kunit_print_failed_param(test);
 
 	WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
 }
@@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
 		}
 	}
 
-	test_case->run_case(test);
+	if (!test_case->generate_params) {
+		test_case->run_case(test);
+	} else {
+		test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, NULL);
+		test->current_param = 0;
+
+		while (test->param_values) {
+			test_case->run_case(test);
+			test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, test->param_values);
+			test->current_param++;
+		}
+	}
 }
 
 static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
-- 
2.25.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature
  2020-10-23 15:05 [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Arpitha Raghunandan
@ 2020-10-23 15:06 ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  2020-10-26 18:11   ` Iurii Zaikin
  2020-10-23 18:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Marco Elver
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arpitha Raghunandan @ 2020-10-23 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: brendanhiggins, skhan, elver, yzaikin, tytso, adilger.kernel
  Cc: Arpitha Raghunandan, linux-kselftest, kunit-dev, linux-kernel,
	linux-kernel-mentees, linux-ext4

Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing
feature of KUnit.

Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
---
Changes v1->v2:
- Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing

 fs/ext4/inode-test.c | 318 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 162 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
index d62d802c9c12..611a1cf2581d 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
@@ -80,6 +80,137 @@ struct timestamp_expectation {
 	bool lower_bound;
 };
 
+static struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 0,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 0,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 0,
+		.expected = {0LL, 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 0,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 1,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 1,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 1,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 1,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits =  2,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = true,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 2,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 2,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 2,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 6,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL,
+			     .tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = true,
+		.extra_bits = 3,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
+		.msb_set = false,
+		.lower_bound = false,
+		.extra_bits = 3,
+		.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
+	}
+};
+
 static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test)
 {
 	if (test->msb_set) {
@@ -101,166 +232,41 @@ static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test)
  */
 static void inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding(struct kunit *test)
 {
-	const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 0,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 0,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 0,
-			.expected = {0LL, 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 0,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 1,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 1,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 1,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 1,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits =  2,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = true,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 2,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 2,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 2,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 6,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL,
-				     .tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = true,
-			.extra_bits = 3,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		},
-
-		{
-			.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
-			.msb_set = false,
-			.lower_bound = false,
-			.extra_bits = 3,
-			.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
-		}
-	};
-
 	struct timespec64 timestamp;
-	int i;
-
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_data); ++i) {
-		timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(&test_data[i]);
-		ext4_decode_extra_time(&timestamp,
-				       cpu_to_le32(test_data[i].extra_bits));
-
-		KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
-				    test_data[i].expected.tv_sec,
-				    timestamp.tv_sec,
-				    CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
-				    test_data[i].test_case_name,
-				    test_data[i].msb_set,
-				    test_data[i].lower_bound,
-				    test_data[i].extra_bits);
-		KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
-				    test_data[i].expected.tv_nsec,
-				    timestamp.tv_nsec,
-				    CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
-				    test_data[i].test_case_name,
-				    test_data[i].msb_set,
-				    test_data[i].lower_bound,
-				    test_data[i].extra_bits);
-	}
+
+	struct timestamp_expectation *test_param =
+			(struct timestamp_expectation *)(test->param_values);
+
+	timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(test_param);
+	ext4_decode_extra_time(&timestamp,
+			       cpu_to_le32(test_param->extra_bits));
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
+			    test_param->expected.tv_sec,
+			    timestamp.tv_sec,
+			    CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
+			    test_param->test_case_name,
+			    test_param->msb_set,
+			    test_param->lower_bound,
+			    test_param->extra_bits);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
+			    test_param->expected.tv_nsec,
+			    timestamp.tv_nsec,
+			    CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
+			    test_param->test_case_name,
+			    test_param->msb_set,
+			    test_param->lower_bound,
+			    test_param->extra_bits);
+}
+
+static void *generate_params(struct kunit *test, void *prev)
+{
+	return KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER(test, prev, test_data,
+					struct timestamp_expectation);
 }
 
 static struct kunit_case ext4_inode_test_cases[] = {
-	KUNIT_CASE(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding),
+	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding, generate_params),
 	{}
 };
 
-- 
2.25.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
  2020-10-23 15:05 [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Arpitha Raghunandan
  2020-10-23 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature Arpitha Raghunandan
@ 2020-10-23 18:48 ` Marco Elver
  2020-10-23 18:56   ` Marco Elver
  2020-10-24  5:23   ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Marco Elver @ 2020-10-23 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arpitha Raghunandan
  Cc: brendanhiggins, skhan, yzaikin, tytso, adilger.kernel,
	linux-kselftest, kunit-dev, linux-kernel, linux-kernel-mentees,
	linux-ext4

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:35PM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.

Already looks much cleaner, thanks for using this approach!

I think the commit message needs a brief summary of the approach.

> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes v1->v2:
> - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
> 
>  include/kunit/test.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/kunit/test.c     | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index a423fffefea0..c417ac140326 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct kunit;
>  struct kunit_case {
>  	void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
>  	const char *name;
> +	void* (*generate_params)(struct kunit *test, void *prev);

Would adding documentation above this field be the right place, or
somewhere else? In any case, some explanation of the protocol would be
good.

>  	/* private: internal use only. */
>  	bool success;
> @@ -162,6 +163,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status)
>   * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it.
>   */
>  #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
> +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params)			\
> +		{ .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name,	\
> +		  .generate_params = gen_params }
>  
>  /**
>   * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
> @@ -208,6 +212,15 @@ struct kunit {
>  	const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
>  	char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
>  	struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
> +	/* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
> +	void *param_values;
> +	/*
> +	 * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
> +	 * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
> +	 * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
> +	 * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
> +	 */
> +	int current_param;
>  	/*
>  	 * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
>  	 * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
> @@ -1742,4 +1755,36 @@ do {									       \
>  						fmt,			       \
>  						##__VA_ARGS__)
>  
> +/**
> + * kunit_param_generator_helper() - Helper method for test parameter generators
> + * 				    required in parameterized tests.
> + * @test: The test context object.
> + * @prev_param: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
> + * @param_array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
> + * @array_size: number of test parameters in the array.
> + * @type_size: size of one test parameter.
> + */
> +static inline void *kunit_param_generator_helper(struct kunit *test,

I don't think this needs to be inline, but see my other suggestion
below, which might make this function obsolete.

> +					void *prev_param,
> +					void *param_array,
> +					size_t array_size,
> +					size_t type_size)
> +{
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (prev_param - param_array) % type_size, 0);
> +
> +	if (!prev_param)
> +		return param_array;
> +
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, prev_param, param_array);
> +
> +	if (prev_param + type_size < param_array + (array_size * type_size))
> +		return prev_param + type_size;
> +	else
> +		return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER(test, prev_param, param_array, param_type) \
> +	kunit_param_generator_helper(test, prev_param, param_array,		\
> +				ARRAY_SIZE(param_array), sizeof(param_type))

You do not need param_type, you can use the same trick that ARRAY_SIZE
uses:

	#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))

So you could use sizeof((param_aray)[0]) instead of sizeof(param_type).
ARRAY_SIZE already checks for you that it's a real array via
__must_be_array().


The other question is, will kunit_param_generator_helper() find much use
without the KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER() macro? If I have some
complicated generator protocol to generate params, then I'd just
directly write the generator function. If your intent is to simplify the
common-case array based generators, why not just have a macro generate
the generator function?

More specifically, have this macro here:

+#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array)								\
+	static void *name##_gen_params(struct kunit *test, void *prev)				\
+	{											\
+		typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array);	\
+		return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL;			\
+	}

[ It is entirely untested, but if it works verbatim you'll probably need my

	Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
	Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
 
 just in case... ]

Then, it can be used as follows:

	static int num_cpus[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
	KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(num_cpus, num_cpus);

Then somewhere else:

	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(some_test, num_cpus_gen_params);

>  #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 750704abe89a..0e6ffe6384a7 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
>  
> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
> +}
> +
>  static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
>  				      struct string_stream *stream)
>  {
> @@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
>  	assert->format(assert, stream);
>  
>  	kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
> +	if (test->param_values)
> +		kunit_print_failed_param(test);
>  
>  	WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
>  }
> @@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	test_case->run_case(test);
> +	if (!test_case->generate_params) {
> +		test_case->run_case(test);
> +	} else {
> +		test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, NULL);
> +		test->current_param = 0;
> +
> +		while (test->param_values) {
> +			test_case->run_case(test);
> +			test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, test->param_values);
> +			test->current_param++;
> +		}
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test)

Otherwise looks fine.

Thanks,
-- Marco

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
  2020-10-23 18:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Marco Elver
@ 2020-10-23 18:56   ` Marco Elver
  2020-10-24  5:23   ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Marco Elver @ 2020-10-23 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arpitha Raghunandan
  Cc: Brendan Higgins, skhan, Iurii Zaikin, Theodore Ts'o,
	Andreas Dilger, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
	KUnit Development, LKML, linux-kernel-mentees, linux-ext4

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:48, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
[...]
> > + */
> > +static inline void *kunit_param_generator_helper(struct kunit *test,
>
> I don't think this needs to be inline, but see my other suggestion
> below, which might make this function obsolete.

Ah sorry, it's in a header so we might get complaints if it's not
inline. But in any case, if you use the KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() macro I
proposed, this function will become obsolete.

Thanks,
-- Marco

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
  2020-10-23 18:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Marco Elver
  2020-10-23 18:56   ` Marco Elver
@ 2020-10-24  5:23   ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arpitha Raghunandan @ 2020-10-24  5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marco Elver
  Cc: brendanhiggins, skhan, yzaikin, tytso, adilger.kernel,
	linux-kselftest, kunit-dev, linux-kernel, linux-kernel-mentees,
	linux-ext4

On 24/10/20 12:18 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:35PM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.
> 
> Already looks much cleaner, thanks for using this approach!
> 
> I think the commit message needs a brief summary of the approach.
> 

Okay, I will add a more detailed commit message for the next version.

>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Changes v1->v2:
>> - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
>>
>>  include/kunit/test.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  lib/kunit/test.c     | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>> index a423fffefea0..c417ac140326 100644
>> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct kunit;
>>  struct kunit_case {
>>  	void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
>>  	const char *name;
>> +	void* (*generate_params)(struct kunit *test, void *prev);
> 
> Would adding documentation above this field be the right place, or
> somewhere else? In any case, some explanation of the protocol would be
> good.
> 

I will include this.

>>  	/* private: internal use only. */
>>  	bool success;
>> @@ -162,6 +163,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status)
>>   * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it.
>>   */
>>  #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
>> +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params)			\
>> +		{ .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name,	\
>> +		  .generate_params = gen_params }
>>  
>>  /**
>>   * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
>> @@ -208,6 +212,15 @@ struct kunit {
>>  	const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
>>  	char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
>>  	struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
>> +	/* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
>> +	void *param_values;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
>> +	 * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
>> +	 * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
>> +	 * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
>> +	 */
>> +	int current_param;
>>  	/*
>>  	 * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
>>  	 * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
>> @@ -1742,4 +1755,36 @@ do {									       \
>>  						fmt,			       \
>>  						##__VA_ARGS__)
>>  
>> +/**
>> + * kunit_param_generator_helper() - Helper method for test parameter generators
>> + * 				    required in parameterized tests.
>> + * @test: The test context object.
>> + * @prev_param: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
>> + * @param_array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
>> + * @array_size: number of test parameters in the array.
>> + * @type_size: size of one test parameter.
>> + */
>> +static inline void *kunit_param_generator_helper(struct kunit *test,
> 
> I don't think this needs to be inline, but see my other suggestion
> below, which might make this function obsolete.
> 
>> +					void *prev_param,
>> +					void *param_array,
>> +					size_t array_size,
>> +					size_t type_size)
>> +{
>> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (prev_param - param_array) % type_size, 0);
>> +
>> +	if (!prev_param)
>> +		return param_array;
>> +
>> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, prev_param, param_array);
>> +
>> +	if (prev_param + type_size < param_array + (array_size * type_size))
>> +		return prev_param + type_size;
>> +	else
>> +		return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER(test, prev_param, param_array, param_type) \
>> +	kunit_param_generator_helper(test, prev_param, param_array,		\
>> +				ARRAY_SIZE(param_array), sizeof(param_type))
> 
> You do not need param_type, you can use the same trick that ARRAY_SIZE
> uses:
> 
> 	#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
> 
> So you could use sizeof((param_aray)[0]) instead of sizeof(param_type).
> ARRAY_SIZE already checks for you that it's a real array via
> __must_be_array().
> 
> 
> The other question is, will kunit_param_generator_helper() find much use
> without the KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER() macro? If I have some
> complicated generator protocol to generate params, then I'd just
> directly write the generator function. If your intent is to simplify the
> common-case array based generators, why not just have a macro generate
> the generator function?
> 
> More specifically, have this macro here:
> 
> +#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array)								\
> +	static void *name##_gen_params(struct kunit *test, void *prev)				\
> +	{											\
> +		typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array);	\
> +		return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL;			\
> +	}
> 
> [ It is entirely untested, but if it works verbatim you'll probably need my
> 
> 	Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> 	Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
>  
>  just in case... ]
> 
> Then, it can be used as follows:
> 
> 	static int num_cpus[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
> 	KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(num_cpus, num_cpus);
> 
> Then somewhere else:
> 
> 	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(some_test, num_cpus_gen_params);
> 

Yes, a macro can be used to generate the generator function. I will work with this
for the next version.

>>  #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
>> index 750704abe89a..0e6ffe6384a7 100644
>> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
>> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
>> @@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
>>  
>> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +	kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
>>  				      struct string_stream *stream)
>>  {
>> @@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
>>  	assert->format(assert, stream);
>>  
>>  	kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
>> +	if (test->param_values)
>> +		kunit_print_failed_param(test);
>>  
>>  	WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
>>  }
>> @@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	test_case->run_case(test);
>> +	if (!test_case->generate_params) {
>> +		test_case->run_case(test);
>> +	} else {
>> +		test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, NULL);
>> +		test->current_param = 0;
>> +
>> +		while (test->param_values) {
>> +			test_case->run_case(test);
>> +			test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, test->param_values);
>> +			test->current_param++;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
> 
> Otherwise looks fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
> 

Thanks!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature
  2020-10-23 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature Arpitha Raghunandan
@ 2020-10-26 18:11   ` Iurii Zaikin
  2020-10-26 18:19     ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Iurii Zaikin @ 2020-10-26 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arpitha Raghunandan
  Cc: Brendan Higgins, Shuah Khan, Marco Elver, Theodore Ts'o,
	Andreas Dilger, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
	KUnit Development, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	linux-kernel-mentees, Ext4 Developers List

> +static struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
Can you mark this and the rest of the hardcoded values as the const they are?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature
  2020-10-26 18:11   ` Iurii Zaikin
@ 2020-10-26 18:19     ` Arpitha Raghunandan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arpitha Raghunandan @ 2020-10-26 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Iurii Zaikin
  Cc: Brendan Higgins, Shuah Khan, Marco Elver, Theodore Ts'o,
	Andreas Dilger, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
	KUnit Development, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	linux-kernel-mentees, Ext4 Developers List

On 26/10/20 11:41 pm, Iurii Zaikin wrote:
>> +static struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
> Can you mark this and the rest of the hardcoded values as the const they are?
> 

Sure, I will make this change for the next version.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-26 18:19 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-23 15:05 [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Arpitha Raghunandan
2020-10-23 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: ext4: Modify inode-test.c to use KUnit parameterized testing feature Arpitha Raghunandan
2020-10-26 18:11   ` Iurii Zaikin
2020-10-26 18:19     ` Arpitha Raghunandan
2020-10-23 18:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing Marco Elver
2020-10-23 18:56   ` Marco Elver
2020-10-24  5:23   ` Arpitha Raghunandan

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).