From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD59C3A5A2 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 19:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC6C21874 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 19:04:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1566587075; bh=IcUeS/+TSgwe3vpGhsSSuKosuUCpUPmBosbk8jcvaiQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=vC71ljNtu82y7VNlCe9/bWzk44U+8CKwCS1FeLBF54JKWqmJpYrKuSxjHkrKvWO9g s+2bYiBwtiOWxbzgLJFC4XlpIl0Wc8MqoH1NPj3tzvrpSsZoyBehIooEbgbEgUTWDy rWf1zIQfueWW1CVzc0UtQ8pwzcV6T+Wcqw2LoE5I= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404987AbfHWTEe (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:04:34 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33310 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731548AbfHWTEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:04:33 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.112] (c-24-9-64-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net [24.9.64.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3753421848; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 19:04:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1566587071; bh=IcUeS/+TSgwe3vpGhsSSuKosuUCpUPmBosbk8jcvaiQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=rTIzWC5zV0nre7u91ZEq8hwQlH6tqRHWTl+qBs41DcDiAX1J7JTqdsK/8M+gB2aXV jY1KM2aXt9mhG0S7tsFYAxrQ8qevfBMbP/nt3ThaxmXWkJ+P5h+7YS7dFr0VNwcMvv q3bECzFy7Ss58ipoWy0HfZrpT07Z1h7kiD1/5jOw= Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Frank Rowand , Greg KH , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Theodore Ts'o , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , "Bird, Timothy" , Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Vetter , Jeff Dike , Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , Kevin Hilman , Knut Omang , Logan Gunthorpe , Petr Mladek , Randy Dunlap , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com, shuah References: <20190820232046.50175-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190820232046.50175-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> <7f2c8908-75f6-b793-7113-ad57c51777ce@kernel.org> <4513d9f3-a69b-a9a4-768b-86c2962b62e0@kernel.org> <42c6235c-c586-8de1-1913-7cf1962c6066@kernel.org> <54f3c011-d666-e828-5e77-359b7a7374e7@kernel.org> From: shuah Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 13:04:28 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah wrote: >> >> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Brendan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way >>>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test >>>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also >>>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here >>>>>>>>> we call them test_modules). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting >>>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++ >>>>>>>>> kunit/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>>>>> kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 388 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test.c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e >>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ >>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>>>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. >>>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins >>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +#include >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +struct kunit; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case. >>>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. >>>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` >>>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each >>>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the >>>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE() >>>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an >>>>>>>>> + * empty test case. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * Example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read. >>>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80 >>>>>>>> and wrap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column >>>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when >>>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up >>>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that >>>>>>> they are only 80 chars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char >>>>>>> lines in this file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please >>>>>>> confirm either way. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations >>>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137: >>>>>> + */ \ >>>>>> >>>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked >>>>> >>>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation. >>>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line >>>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of >>>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro. >>>>> >>>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it >>>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc >>>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged >>>>> in the user documentation. >>>>> >>>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer >>>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the >>>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in >>>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty >>>>> substantial change to make. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch >>>> complaining and the other is general readability. >>> >>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out >>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it >>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is >>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do >>> it without just removing the comment entirely). >>> >> >> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a >> kernel-doc comment. > > I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we > figure out the column limit issue. > >> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in >> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am >> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments. >> I think it makes perfect sense. > > Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my > local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something > interesting is going on here. > > To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue > after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself? > I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this. Just this patch. All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue. > Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon > so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this > figured out pretty quickly. > Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today. thanks, -- Shuah