linux-kselftest.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
	brendanhiggins@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	keescook@chromium.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@oracle.com,
	shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the 'list' doubly linked list
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 07:00:16 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cb1d948-0da3-eb0f-c58f-ae3a785dd0dd@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191024224631.118656-1-davidgow@google.com>

Hi David,

On 10/24/19 4:46 PM, David Gow wrote:
> Add a KUnit test for the kernel doubly linked list implementation in
> include/linux/list.h
> 
> Each test case (list_test_x) is focused on testing the behaviour of the
> list function/macro 'x'. None of the tests pass invalid lists to these
> macros, and so should behave identically with DEBUG_LIST enabled and
> disabled.
> 
> Note that, at present, it only tests the list_ types (not the
> singly-linked hlist_), and does not yet test all of the
> list_for_each_entry* macros (and some related things like
> list_prepare_entry).
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> Tested-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> ---
> 
> This revision addresses Brendan's comments in
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191023220248.GA55483@google.com/
> 
> Specifically:
> - Brendan's Reviewed-by/Tested-by being included in the description.
> - A couple of trailing tabs in Kconfig.debug & list-test.c
> - Reformatting of previously >80 character lines.
> 
> 
> Earlier versions of this patchset can be found:
> 
> v5:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191022221322.122788-1-davidgow@google.com/
> v4:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191018215549.65000-1-davidgow@google.com/
> v3:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191016215707.95317-1-davidgow@google.com/
> v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191010185631.26541-1-davidgow@google.com/
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20191007213633.92565-1-davidgow@google.com/
> 

CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around test_struct.list
#699: FILE: lib/list-test.c:510:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct, list_entry(&(test_struct.list),

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#700: FILE: lib/list-test.c:511:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct, list_entry(&(test_struct.list),
+				struct list_test_struct, list));

CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
#711: FILE: lib/list-test.c:522:
+
+

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#713: FILE: lib/list-test.c:524:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct1, list_first_entry(&list,
+				struct list_test_struct, list));

CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
#724: FILE: lib/list-test.c:535:
+
+

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#726: FILE: lib/list-test.c:537:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct2, list_last_entry(&list,
+				struct list_test_struct, list));

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#735: FILE: lib/list-test.c:546:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_first_entry_or_null(&list,
+				struct list_test_struct, list));

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#741: FILE: lib/list-test.c:552:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct1,
+			list_first_entry_or_null(&list,

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#742: FILE: lib/list-test.c:553:
+			list_first_entry_or_null(&list,
+				struct list_test_struct, list));

CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
#753: FILE: lib/list-test.c:564:
+
+

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#755: FILE: lib/list-test.c:566:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct2, list_next_entry(&test_struct1,
+				list));

CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
#766: FILE: lib/list-test.c:577:
+
+

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#768: FILE: lib/list-test.c:579:
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct1, list_prev_entry(&test_struct2,
+				list));

ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
#789: FILE: lib/list-test.c:600:
+static void list_test_list_for_each_prev(struct kunit *test)
+{

ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
#807: FILE: lib/list-test.c:618:
+static void list_test_list_for_each_safe(struct kunit *test)
+{

CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
#813: FILE: lib/list-test.c:624:
+
+

ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
#828: FILE: lib/list-test.c:639:
+static void list_test_list_for_each_prev_safe(struct kunit *test)
+{

ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
#848: FILE: lib/list-test.c:659:
+static void list_test_list_for_each_entry(struct kunit *test)
+{

ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
#869: FILE: lib/list-test.c:680:
+static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test)
+{


I am seeing these error and warns. As per our hallway conversation, the
"for_each*" in the test naming is tripping up checkpatch.pl

For now you can change the name a bit to not trip checkpatch and maybe
explore fixing checkpatch to differentiate between function names
with "for_each" in them vs. the actual for_each usages in the code.

thanks,
-- Shuah

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-29 13:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-24 22:46 David Gow
2019-10-29 13:00 ` shuah [this message]
2019-10-30  8:02   ` David Gow
2019-10-30 10:42     ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-30 16:27       ` shuah
2019-10-30 16:35         ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-30 17:18           ` Joe Perches
2019-10-31  8:51             ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-31 10:07               ` Joe Perches
2019-10-31 10:20               ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-30 18:46         ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-30 19:15           ` Joe Perches
2019-10-31  6:59             ` Dan Carpenter
2019-11-01 10:50             ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-10-30 19:12         ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-30 19:23           ` Joe Perches
2019-10-31  7:12             ` David Gow
2019-10-31  7:42               ` Dan Carpenter
2019-11-01 16:49             ` shuah
2019-10-30 16:31       ` Joe Perches
2019-10-31 18:50 ` Kees Cook
2019-11-01 10:25   ` David Gow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0cb1d948-0da3-eb0f-c58f-ae3a785dd0dd@kernel.org \
    --to=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the '\''list'\'' doubly linked list' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).