* [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math @ 2021-04-12 19:07 Daniel Latypov 2021-04-13 6:41 ` David Gow 2021-09-03 2:26 ` Daniel Latypov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-12 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andriy.shevchenko Cc: brendanhiggins, davidgow, linux-kernel, kunit-dev, linux-kselftest, skhan, Daniel Latypov Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options: * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros) * gcd.c * lcm.c * int_sqrt.c * reciprocal_div.c (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.) These tests aren't particularly interesting, but they * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> --- Changes since v4: * add in test cases for some math.h macros (abs, round_up/round_down, div_round_down/closest) * use parameterized testing less to keep things terser Changes since v3: * fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings * add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0) * minor: don't test both gcd(a,b) and gcd(b,a) when a == b Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c Changes since v1: * Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support. * misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string. * related: commit 1f0e943df68a ("Documentation: kunit: provide guidance for testing many inputs") was merged explaining the patterns shown here. * there's an in-flight patch to update it for parameterized testing. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com/ --- lib/math/Kconfig | 5 + lib/math/Makefile | 2 + lib/math/math_kunit.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+) create mode 100644 lib/math/math_kunit.c diff --git a/lib/math/Kconfig b/lib/math/Kconfig index f19bc9734fa7..6ba8680439c1 100644 --- a/lib/math/Kconfig +++ b/lib/math/Kconfig @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@ config PRIME_NUMBERS config RATIONAL bool + +config MATH_KUNIT_TEST + tristate "KUnit test for lib/math" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS + depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/math/Makefile b/lib/math/Makefile index be6909e943bd..30abb7a8d564 100644 --- a/lib/math/Makefile +++ b/lib/math/Makefile @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@ obj-y += div64.o gcd.o lcm.o int_pow.o int_sqrt.o reciprocal_div.o obj-$(CONFIG_CORDIC) += cordic.o obj-$(CONFIG_PRIME_NUMBERS) += prime_numbers.o obj-$(CONFIG_RATIONAL) += rational.o + +obj-$(CONFIG_MATH_KUNIT_TEST) += math_kunit.o diff --git a/lib/math/math_kunit.c b/lib/math/math_kunit.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..80a087a32884 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/math/math_kunit.c @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * Simple KUnit suite for math helper funcs that are always enabled. + * + * Copyright (C) 2020, Google LLC. + * Author: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> + */ + +#include <kunit/test.h> +#include <linux/gcd.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/lcm.h> +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> + +static void abs_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('\0'), '\0'); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('a'), 'a'); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-'a'), 'a'); + + /* The expression in the macro is actually promoted to an int. */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)0), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)42), 42); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)-42), 42); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42), 42); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42), 42); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0L), 0L); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42L), 42L); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42L), 42L); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0LL), 0LL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42LL), 42LL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42LL), 42LL); + + /* Unsigned types get casted to signed. */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0ULL), 0LL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42ULL), 42LL); +} + +static void int_sqrt_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(0UL), 0UL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL), 1UL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(4UL), 2UL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(5UL), 2UL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(8UL), 2UL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL << 30), 1UL << 15); +} + +static void round_up_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(0, 1), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(1, 2), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(3, 2), 4); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 2), 1 << 30); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 30); +} + +static void round_down_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(0, 1), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(1, 2), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(3, 2), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 2), (1 << 30) - 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 29); +} + +static void div_round_up_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(0, 1), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(20, 10), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 10), 3); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 20), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 99), 1); +} + +static void div_round_closest_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(0, 1), 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(20, 10), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(21, 10), 2); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(25, 10), 3); +} + +/* Generic test case for unsigned long inputs. */ +struct test_case { + unsigned long a, b; + unsigned long result; +}; + +static struct test_case gcd_cases[] = { + { + .a = 0, .b = 0, + .result = 0, + }, + { + .a = 0, .b = 1, + .result = 1, + }, + { + .a = 2, .b = 2, + .result = 2, + }, + { + .a = 2, .b = 4, + .result = 2, + }, + { + .a = 3, .b = 5, + .result = 1, + }, + { + .a = 3 * 9, .b = 3 * 5, + .result = 3, + }, + { + .a = 3 * 5 * 7, .b = 3 * 5 * 11, + .result = 15, + }, + { + .a = 1 << 21, + .b = (1 << 21) - 1, + .result = 1, + }, +}; + +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(gcd, gcd_cases, NULL); + +static void gcd_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + const char *message_fmt = "gcd(%lu, %lu)"; + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, + gcd(test_param->a, test_param->b), + message_fmt, test_param->a, + test_param->b); + + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) + return; + + /* gcd(a,b) == gcd(b,a) */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, + gcd(test_param->b, test_param->a), + message_fmt, test_param->b, + test_param->a); +} + +static struct test_case lcm_cases[] = { + { + .a = 0, .b = 0, + .result = 0, + }, + { + .a = 0, .b = 1, + .result = 0, + }, + { + .a = 1, .b = 2, + .result = 2, + }, + { + .a = 2, .b = 2, + .result = 2, + }, + { + .a = 3 * 5, .b = 3 * 7, + .result = 3 * 5 * 7, + }, +}; + +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(lcm, lcm_cases, NULL); + +static void lcm_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + const char *message_fmt = "lcm(%lu, %lu)"; + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, + lcm(test_param->a, test_param->b), + message_fmt, test_param->a, + test_param->b); + + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) + return; + + /* lcm(a,b) == lcm(b,a) */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, + lcm(test_param->b, test_param->a), + message_fmt, test_param->b, + test_param->a); +} + +struct u32_test_case { + u32 a, b; + u32 result; +}; + +static struct u32_test_case reciprocal_div_cases[] = { + { + .a = 0, .b = 1, + .result = 0, + }, + { + .a = 42, .b = 20, + .result = 2, + }, + { + .a = 42, .b = 9999, + .result = 0, + }, + { + .a = (1 << 16), .b = (1 << 14), + .result = 1 << 2, + }, +}; + +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(reciprocal_div, reciprocal_div_cases, NULL); + +static void reciprocal_div_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + const struct u32_test_case *test_param = test->param_value; + struct reciprocal_value rv = reciprocal_value(test_param->b); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, + reciprocal_divide(test_param->a, rv), + "reciprocal_divide(%u, %u)", + test_param->a, test_param->b); +} + +static void reciprocal_scale_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(0u, 100), 0u); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u, 100), 0u); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 4, 1 << 28), 1u); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 16, 1 << 28), 1u << 12); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(~0u, 1 << 28), (1u << 28) - 1); +} + +static struct kunit_case math_test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(abs_test), + KUNIT_CASE(int_sqrt_test), + KUNIT_CASE(round_up_test), + KUNIT_CASE(round_down_test), + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_up_test), + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_closest_test), + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(gcd_test, gcd_gen_params), + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(lcm_test, lcm_gen_params), + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(reciprocal_div_test, reciprocal_div_gen_params), + KUNIT_CASE(reciprocal_scale_test), + {} +}; + +static struct kunit_suite math_test_suite = { + .name = "lib-math", + .test_cases = math_test_cases, +}; + +kunit_test_suites(&math_test_suite); + +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); base-commit: 4fa56ad0d12e24df768c98bffe9039f915d1bc02 -- 2.31.1.295.g9ea45b61b8-goog ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math 2021-04-12 19:07 [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-13 6:41 ` David Gow 2021-04-14 0:33 ` Daniel Latypov 2021-09-03 2:26 ` Daniel Latypov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: David Gow @ 2021-04-13 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Latypov Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:07 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options: > * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros) > * gcd.c > * lcm.c > * int_sqrt.c > * reciprocal_div.c > (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.) > > These tests aren't particularly interesting, but they > * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests > * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir > * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy > * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> This looks good to me. A few comments/observations below, but nothing that I think should actually block this. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> -- David > --- > Changes since v4: > * add in test cases for some math.h macros (abs, round_up/round_down, > div_round_down/closest) > * use parameterized testing less to keep things terser > > Changes since v3: > * fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings > * add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0) > * minor: don't test both gcd(a,b) and gcd(b,a) when a == b > > Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c > > Changes since v1: > * Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support. > * misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string. > * related: commit 1f0e943df68a ("Documentation: kunit: provide guidance > for testing many inputs") was merged explaining the patterns shown here. > * there's an in-flight patch to update it for parameterized testing. > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com/ > --- > lib/math/Kconfig | 5 + > lib/math/Makefile | 2 + > lib/math/math_kunit.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 lib/math/math_kunit.c > > diff --git a/lib/math/Kconfig b/lib/math/Kconfig > index f19bc9734fa7..6ba8680439c1 100644 > --- a/lib/math/Kconfig > +++ b/lib/math/Kconfig > @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@ config PRIME_NUMBERS > > config RATIONAL > bool > + > +config MATH_KUNIT_TEST > + tristate "KUnit test for lib/math" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + depends on KUNIT This could have a description of the test and KUnit here, as mentioned in the style guide doc: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-kconfig-entries (I think it's sufficiently self explanatory that it's not essential, but it could be nice to have a more detailed description of the things being tested than just "lib/math".) > diff --git a/lib/math/Makefile b/lib/math/Makefile > index be6909e943bd..30abb7a8d564 100644 > --- a/lib/math/Makefile > +++ b/lib/math/Makefile > @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@ obj-y += div64.o gcd.o lcm.o int_pow.o int_sqrt.o reciprocal_div.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CORDIC) += cordic.o > obj-$(CONFIG_PRIME_NUMBERS) += prime_numbers.o > obj-$(CONFIG_RATIONAL) += rational.o > + > +obj-$(CONFIG_MATH_KUNIT_TEST) += math_kunit.o > diff --git a/lib/math/math_kunit.c b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..80a087a32884 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * Simple KUnit suite for math helper funcs that are always enabled. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2020, Google LLC. > + * Author: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > + */ > + > +#include <kunit/test.h> > +#include <linux/gcd.h> > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/lcm.h> > +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> > + > +static void abs_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ There's something weird about taking the absolute values of char literals. I'm not sure if it's better to case integer literals (like with 'short' below), or keep it as-is. > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('\0'), '\0'); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('a'), 'a'); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-'a'), 'a'); > + > + /* The expression in the macro is actually promoted to an int. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)0), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)42), 42); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)-42), 42); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42), 42); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42), 42); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0L), 0L); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42L), 42L); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42L), 42L); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0LL), 0LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42LL), 42LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42LL), 42LL); > + > + /* Unsigned types get casted to signed. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0ULL), 0LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42ULL), 42LL); A part of me is curious what the result is for -0x80000000, but I guess that's not defined, so shouldn't be tested. :-) > +} > + > +static void int_sqrt_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(0UL), 0UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL), 1UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(4UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(5UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(8UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL << 30), 1UL << 15); > +} > + _Maybe_ it's worth a comment here that round_up (and round_down) only support rounding to powers of two? (Either that, or also test roundup/rounddown to provide the contrast.) > +static void round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(1, 2), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(3, 2), 4); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 2), 1 << 30); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 30); > +} > + > +static void round_down_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(1, 2), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(3, 2), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 2), (1 << 30) - 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 29); > +} > + > +static void div_round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(20, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 10), 3); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 20), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 99), 1); > +} > + > +static void div_round_closest_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(20, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(21, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(25, 10), 3); > +} > + > +/* Generic test case for unsigned long inputs. */ > +struct test_case { > + unsigned long a, b; > + unsigned long result; > +}; > + > +static struct test_case gcd_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 1, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 4, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3, .b = 5, > + .result = 1, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 9, .b = 3 * 5, > + .result = 3, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 5 * 7, .b = 3 * 5 * 11, > + .result = 15, > + }, > + { > + .a = 1 << 21, > + .b = (1 << 21) - 1, > + .result = 1, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(gcd, gcd_cases, NULL); > + > +static void gcd_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const char *message_fmt = "gcd(%lu, %lu)"; > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + gcd(test_param->a, test_param->b), > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > + test_param->b); > + > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > + return; > + > + /* gcd(a,b) == gcd(b,a) */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + gcd(test_param->b, test_param->a), > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > + test_param->a); > +} > + > +static struct test_case lcm_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 1, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 5, .b = 3 * 7, > + .result = 3 * 5 * 7, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(lcm, lcm_cases, NULL); > + > +static void lcm_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const char *message_fmt = "lcm(%lu, %lu)"; > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + lcm(test_param->a, test_param->b), > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > + test_param->b); > + > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > + return; > + > + /* lcm(a,b) == lcm(b,a) */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + lcm(test_param->b, test_param->a), > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > + test_param->a); > +} > + > +struct u32_test_case { > + u32 a, b; > + u32 result; > +}; > + > +static struct u32_test_case reciprocal_div_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 42, .b = 20, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 42, .b = 9999, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = (1 << 16), .b = (1 << 14), > + .result = 1 << 2, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(reciprocal_div, reciprocal_div_cases, NULL); Is there a reason this test is using KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() rather than a get_desc function in KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM()? I can sort-of see how the former is a little simpler, so I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is, but it's nice to have KUnit aware of a nicer name for the parameter if all else is equal. (I think there's a stronger case for keeping the gcd/lcm tests as is because they actually have two checks per parameter, but even then, it's not absurdly silly. And it'd be possible to have both a get_desc function and use EXPECT_..._MSG() to get the best of both worlds, albeit with twice as much work.) > + > +static void reciprocal_div_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const struct u32_test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + struct reciprocal_value rv = reciprocal_value(test_param->b); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + reciprocal_divide(test_param->a, rv), > + "reciprocal_divide(%u, %u)", > + test_param->a, test_param->b); > +} > + > +static void reciprocal_scale_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(0u, 100), 0u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u, 100), 0u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 4, 1 << 28), 1u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 16, 1 << 28), 1u << 12); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(~0u, 1 << 28), (1u << 28) - 1); > +} > + > +static struct kunit_case math_test_cases[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(abs_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(int_sqrt_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(round_up_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(round_down_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_up_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_closest_test), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(gcd_test, gcd_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(lcm_test, lcm_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(reciprocal_div_test, reciprocal_div_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE(reciprocal_scale_test), > + {} > +}; > + > +static struct kunit_suite math_test_suite = { > + .name = "lib-math", > + .test_cases = math_test_cases, > +}; > + > +kunit_test_suites(&math_test_suite); > + > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > base-commit: 4fa56ad0d12e24df768c98bffe9039f915d1bc02 > -- > 2.31.1.295.g9ea45b61b8-goog > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math 2021-04-13 6:41 ` David Gow @ 2021-04-14 0:33 ` Daniel Latypov 2021-04-16 18:10 ` Daniel Latypov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-14 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Gow Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:41 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:07 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options: > > * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros) > > * gcd.c > > * lcm.c > > * int_sqrt.c > > * reciprocal_div.c > > (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.) > > > > These tests aren't particularly interesting, but they > > * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests > > * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir > > * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy > > * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > This looks good to me. A few comments/observations below, but nothing > that I think should actually block this. > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > -- David > > > --- > > Changes since v4: > > * add in test cases for some math.h macros (abs, round_up/round_down, > > div_round_down/closest) > > * use parameterized testing less to keep things terser > > > > Changes since v3: > > * fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings > > * add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0) > > * minor: don't test both gcd(a,b) and gcd(b,a) when a == b > > > > Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c > > > > Changes since v1: > > * Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support. > > * misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string. > > * related: commit 1f0e943df68a ("Documentation: kunit: provide guidance > > for testing many inputs") was merged explaining the patterns shown here. > > * there's an in-flight patch to update it for parameterized testing. > > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com/ > > --- > > lib/math/Kconfig | 5 + > > lib/math/Makefile | 2 + > > lib/math/math_kunit.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 lib/math/math_kunit.c > > > > diff --git a/lib/math/Kconfig b/lib/math/Kconfig > > index f19bc9734fa7..6ba8680439c1 100644 > > --- a/lib/math/Kconfig > > +++ b/lib/math/Kconfig > > @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@ config PRIME_NUMBERS > > > > config RATIONAL > > bool > > + > > +config MATH_KUNIT_TEST > > + tristate "KUnit test for lib/math" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > + depends on KUNIT > > This could have a description of the test and KUnit here, as mentioned > in the style guide doc: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-kconfig-entries > > (I think it's sufficiently self explanatory that it's not essential, > but it could be nice to have a more detailed description of the things > being tested than just "lib/math".) > Done. I've left off the details about what the test tests so we have less places to go and update if/when new tests are added. > > diff --git a/lib/math/Makefile b/lib/math/Makefile > > index be6909e943bd..30abb7a8d564 100644 > > --- a/lib/math/Makefile > > +++ b/lib/math/Makefile > > @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@ obj-y += div64.o gcd.o lcm.o int_pow.o int_sqrt.o reciprocal_div.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_CORDIC) += cordic.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_PRIME_NUMBERS) += prime_numbers.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_RATIONAL) += rational.o > > + > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MATH_KUNIT_TEST) += math_kunit.o > > diff --git a/lib/math/math_kunit.c b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..80a087a32884 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +/* > > + * Simple KUnit suite for math helper funcs that are always enabled. > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2020, Google LLC. > > + * Author: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > + */ > > + > > +#include <kunit/test.h> > > +#include <linux/gcd.h> > > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > > +#include <linux/lcm.h> > > +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> > > + > > +static void abs_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > There's something weird about taking the absolute values of char > literals. I'm not sure if it's better to case integer literals (like > with 'short' below), or keep it as-is. I just thought it was amusing :) Converting it to be like the short test below. > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('\0'), '\0'); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('a'), 'a'); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-'a'), 'a'); > > + > > + /* The expression in the macro is actually promoted to an int. */ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)0), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)42), 42); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)-42), 42); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42), 42); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42), 42); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0L), 0L); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42L), 42L); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42L), 42L); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0LL), 0LL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42LL), 42LL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42LL), 42LL); > > + > > + /* Unsigned types get casted to signed. */ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0ULL), 0LL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42ULL), 42LL); > > A part of me is curious what the result is for -0x80000000, but I > guess that's not defined, so shouldn't be tested. :-) abs(-42ULL) == 42, but the compiler spits out a warning. > > +} > > + > > +static void int_sqrt_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(0UL), 0UL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL), 1UL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(4UL), 2UL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(5UL), 2UL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(8UL), 2UL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL << 30), 1UL << 15); > > +} > > + > > _Maybe_ it's worth a comment here that round_up (and round_down) only > support rounding to powers of two? > (Either that, or also test roundup/rounddown to provide the contrast.) Adding in those test cases for v6. Andy had asked for those as well but I had forgotten them by the time I sent out v5. > > > +static void round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(0, 1), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(1, 2), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(3, 2), 4); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 2), 1 << 30); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 30); > > +} > > + > > +static void round_down_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(0, 1), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(1, 2), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(3, 2), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 2), (1 << 30) - 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 29); > > +} > > + > > +static void div_round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(0, 1), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(20, 10), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 10), 3); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 20), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 99), 1); > > +} > > + > > +static void div_round_closest_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(0, 1), 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(20, 10), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(21, 10), 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(25, 10), 3); > > +} > > + > > +/* Generic test case for unsigned long inputs. */ > > +struct test_case { > > + unsigned long a, b; > > + unsigned long result; > > +}; > > + > > +static struct test_case gcd_cases[] = { > > + { > > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > > + .result = 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > + .result = 1, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > > + .result = 2, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 2, .b = 4, > > + .result = 2, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 3, .b = 5, > > + .result = 1, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 3 * 9, .b = 3 * 5, > > + .result = 3, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 3 * 5 * 7, .b = 3 * 5 * 11, > > + .result = 15, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 1 << 21, > > + .b = (1 << 21) - 1, > > + .result = 1, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(gcd, gcd_cases, NULL); > > + > > +static void gcd_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + const char *message_fmt = "gcd(%lu, %lu)"; > > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > + gcd(test_param->a, test_param->b), > > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > > + test_param->b); > > + > > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > > + return; > > + > > + /* gcd(a,b) == gcd(b,a) */ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > + gcd(test_param->b, test_param->a), > > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > > + test_param->a); > > +} > > + > > +static struct test_case lcm_cases[] = { > > + { > > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > > + .result = 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > + .result = 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 1, .b = 2, > > + .result = 2, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > > + .result = 2, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 3 * 5, .b = 3 * 7, > > + .result = 3 * 5 * 7, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(lcm, lcm_cases, NULL); > > + > > +static void lcm_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + const char *message_fmt = "lcm(%lu, %lu)"; > > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > + lcm(test_param->a, test_param->b), > > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > > + test_param->b); > > + > > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > > + return; > > + > > + /* lcm(a,b) == lcm(b,a) */ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > + lcm(test_param->b, test_param->a), > > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > > + test_param->a); > > +} > > + > > +struct u32_test_case { > > + u32 a, b; > > + u32 result; > > +}; > > + > > +static struct u32_test_case reciprocal_div_cases[] = { > > + { > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > + .result = 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 42, .b = 20, > > + .result = 2, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = 42, .b = 9999, > > + .result = 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .a = (1 << 16), .b = (1 << 14), > > + .result = 1 << 2, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(reciprocal_div, reciprocal_div_cases, NULL); > > Is there a reason this test is using KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() rather than > a get_desc function in KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM()? I can sort-of see how the > former is a little simpler, so I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is, > but it's nice to have KUnit aware of a nicer name for the parameter if > all else is equal. > (I think there's a stronger case for keeping the gcd/lcm tests as is > because they actually have two checks per parameter, but even then, > it's not absurdly silly. And it'd be possible to have both a get_desc > function and use EXPECT_..._MSG() to get the best of both worlds, > albeit with twice as much work.) I can add in the get_desc for it if you want. That's partly a relic of the previous versions of this patchset where I reused the case arrays for the unary funcs as well. But now the unary use case has disappeared and we only need to write one get_desc. But yeah, given it can test two calls of gcd, I've opted to keep it using _MSG(). And I figured I'd keep the reciprocal_div test the same for consistency (aka, I just copy-pasted it from gcd). > > > + > > +static void reciprocal_div_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + const struct u32_test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > + struct reciprocal_value rv = reciprocal_value(test_param->b); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > + reciprocal_divide(test_param->a, rv), > > + "reciprocal_divide(%u, %u)", > > + test_param->a, test_param->b); > > +} > > + > > +static void reciprocal_scale_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(0u, 100), 0u); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u, 100), 0u); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 4, 1 << 28), 1u); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 16, 1 << 28), 1u << 12); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(~0u, 1 << 28), (1u << 28) - 1); > > +} > > + > > +static struct kunit_case math_test_cases[] = { > > + KUNIT_CASE(abs_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(int_sqrt_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(round_up_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(round_down_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_up_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_closest_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(gcd_test, gcd_gen_params), > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(lcm_test, lcm_gen_params), > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(reciprocal_div_test, reciprocal_div_gen_params), > > + KUNIT_CASE(reciprocal_scale_test), > > + {} > > +}; > > + > > +static struct kunit_suite math_test_suite = { > > + .name = "lib-math", > > + .test_cases = math_test_cases, > > +}; > > + > > +kunit_test_suites(&math_test_suite); > > + > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > > > base-commit: 4fa56ad0d12e24df768c98bffe9039f915d1bc02 > > -- > > 2.31.1.295.g9ea45b61b8-goog > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math 2021-04-14 0:33 ` Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-16 18:10 ` Daniel Latypov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-16 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Gow Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:33 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:41 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:07 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options: > > > * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros) > > > * gcd.c > > > * lcm.c > > > * int_sqrt.c > > > * reciprocal_div.c > > > (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.) > > > > > > These tests aren't particularly interesting, but they > > > * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests > > > * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir > > > * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy > > > * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > > > This looks good to me. A few comments/observations below, but nothing > > that I think should actually block this. > > > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > > > -- David > > > > > --- > > > Changes since v4: > > > * add in test cases for some math.h macros (abs, round_up/round_down, > > > div_round_down/closest) > > > * use parameterized testing less to keep things terser > > > > > > Changes since v3: > > > * fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings > > > * add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0) > > > * minor: don't test both gcd(a,b) and gcd(b,a) when a == b > > > > > > Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c > > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > * Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support. > > > * misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string. > > > * related: commit 1f0e943df68a ("Documentation: kunit: provide guidance > > > for testing many inputs") was merged explaining the patterns shown here. > > > * there's an in-flight patch to update it for parameterized testing. > > > > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com/ > > > --- > > > lib/math/Kconfig | 5 + > > > lib/math/Makefile | 2 + > > > lib/math/math_kunit.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 lib/math/math_kunit.c > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/math/Kconfig b/lib/math/Kconfig > > > index f19bc9734fa7..6ba8680439c1 100644 > > > --- a/lib/math/Kconfig > > > +++ b/lib/math/Kconfig > > > @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@ config PRIME_NUMBERS > > > > > > config RATIONAL > > > bool > > > + > > > +config MATH_KUNIT_TEST > > > + tristate "KUnit test for lib/math" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > + depends on KUNIT > > > > This could have a description of the test and KUnit here, as mentioned > > in the style guide doc: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-kconfig-entries > > > > (I think it's sufficiently self explanatory that it's not essential, > > but it could be nice to have a more detailed description of the things > > being tested than just "lib/math".) > > > > Done. I've left off the details about what the test tests so we have > less places to go and update if/when new tests are added. > > > > diff --git a/lib/math/Makefile b/lib/math/Makefile > > > index be6909e943bd..30abb7a8d564 100644 > > > --- a/lib/math/Makefile > > > +++ b/lib/math/Makefile > > > @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@ obj-y += div64.o gcd.o lcm.o int_pow.o int_sqrt.o reciprocal_div.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CORDIC) += cordic.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PRIME_NUMBERS) += prime_numbers.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RATIONAL) += rational.o > > > + > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MATH_KUNIT_TEST) += math_kunit.o > > > diff --git a/lib/math/math_kunit.c b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..80a087a32884 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +/* > > > + * Simple KUnit suite for math helper funcs that are always enabled. > > > + * > > > + * Copyright (C) 2020, Google LLC. > > > + * Author: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#include <kunit/test.h> > > > +#include <linux/gcd.h> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > > > +#include <linux/lcm.h> > > > +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> > > > + > > > +static void abs_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > > There's something weird about taking the absolute values of char > > literals. I'm not sure if it's better to case integer literals (like > > with 'short' below), or keep it as-is. > > I just thought it was amusing :) > Converting it to be like the short test below. > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('\0'), '\0'); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('a'), 'a'); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-'a'), 'a'); > > > + > > > + /* The expression in the macro is actually promoted to an int. */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)0), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)42), 42); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)-42), 42); > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42), 42); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42), 42); > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0L), 0L); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42L), 42L); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42L), 42L); > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0LL), 0LL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42LL), 42LL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42LL), 42LL); > > > + > > > + /* Unsigned types get casted to signed. */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0ULL), 0LL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42ULL), 42LL); > > > > A part of me is curious what the result is for -0x80000000, but I > > guess that's not defined, so shouldn't be tested. :-) > > abs(-42ULL) == 42, but the compiler spits out a warning. > > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void int_sqrt_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(0UL), 0UL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL), 1UL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(4UL), 2UL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(5UL), 2UL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(8UL), 2UL); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL << 30), 1UL << 15); > > > +} > > > + > > > > _Maybe_ it's worth a comment here that round_up (and round_down) only > > support rounding to powers of two? > > (Either that, or also test roundup/rounddown to provide the contrast.) > > Adding in those test cases for v6. > Andy had asked for those as well but I had forgotten them by the time > I sent out v5. > > > > > > +static void round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(0, 1), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(1, 2), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(3, 2), 4); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 2), 1 << 30); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 30); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void round_down_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(0, 1), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(1, 2), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(3, 2), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 2), (1 << 30) - 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 29); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void div_round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(0, 1), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(20, 10), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 10), 3); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 20), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 99), 1); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void div_round_closest_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(0, 1), 0); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(20, 10), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(21, 10), 2); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(25, 10), 3); > > > +} > > > + > > > +/* Generic test case for unsigned long inputs. */ > > > +struct test_case { > > > + unsigned long a, b; > > > + unsigned long result; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static struct test_case gcd_cases[] = { > > > + { > > > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > > > + .result = 0, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > > + .result = 1, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > > > + .result = 2, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 2, .b = 4, > > > + .result = 2, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 3, .b = 5, > > > + .result = 1, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 3 * 9, .b = 3 * 5, > > > + .result = 3, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 3 * 5 * 7, .b = 3 * 5 * 11, > > > + .result = 15, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 1 << 21, > > > + .b = (1 << 21) - 1, > > > + .result = 1, > > > + }, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(gcd, gcd_cases, NULL); > > > + > > > +static void gcd_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + const char *message_fmt = "gcd(%lu, %lu)"; > > > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > > + gcd(test_param->a, test_param->b), > > > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > > > + test_param->b); > > > + > > > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + /* gcd(a,b) == gcd(b,a) */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > > + gcd(test_param->b, test_param->a), > > > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > > > + test_param->a); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static struct test_case lcm_cases[] = { > > > + { > > > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > > > + .result = 0, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > > + .result = 0, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 1, .b = 2, > > > + .result = 2, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > > > + .result = 2, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 3 * 5, .b = 3 * 7, > > > + .result = 3 * 5 * 7, > > > + }, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(lcm, lcm_cases, NULL); > > > + > > > +static void lcm_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + const char *message_fmt = "lcm(%lu, %lu)"; > > > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > > + lcm(test_param->a, test_param->b), > > > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > > > + test_param->b); > > > + > > > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + /* lcm(a,b) == lcm(b,a) */ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > > + lcm(test_param->b, test_param->a), > > > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > > > + test_param->a); > > > +} > > > + > > > +struct u32_test_case { > > > + u32 a, b; > > > + u32 result; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static struct u32_test_case reciprocal_div_cases[] = { > > > + { > > > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > > > + .result = 0, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 42, .b = 20, > > > + .result = 2, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = 42, .b = 9999, > > > + .result = 0, > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .a = (1 << 16), .b = (1 << 14), > > > + .result = 1 << 2, > > > + }, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(reciprocal_div, reciprocal_div_cases, NULL); > > > > Is there a reason this test is using KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() rather than > > a get_desc function in KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM()? I can sort-of see how the > > former is a little simpler, so I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is, > > but it's nice to have KUnit aware of a nicer name for the parameter if > > all else is equal. > > (I think there's a stronger case for keeping the gcd/lcm tests as is > > because they actually have two checks per parameter, but even then, > > it's not absurdly silly. And it'd be possible to have both a get_desc > > function and use EXPECT_..._MSG() to get the best of both worlds, > > albeit with twice as much work.) > > I can add in the get_desc for it if you want. > > That's partly a relic of the previous versions of this patchset where > I reused the case arrays for the unary funcs as well. > But now the unary use case has disappeared and we only need to write > one get_desc. > > But yeah, given it can test two calls of gcd, I've opted to keep it > using _MSG(). > And I figured I'd keep the reciprocal_div test the same for > consistency (aka, I just copy-pasted it from gcd). Btw another reason to use _MSG is that macro text gets expanded in the EXPECT calls. E.g. [11:07:19] # round_down_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/math/math_kunit.c:67 [11:07:19] Expected ((4) & ~((__typeof__(4))((2)-1))) == 2, but [11:07:19] ((4) & ~((__typeof__(4))((2)-1))) == 4 (I didn't do so for the non-parameterized tests since they point to the line number.) So unless one makes a get_desc function for every test, we should use _MSG variants to give a more readable "round_down(4, 2)." And the _MSG variant is just more convenient (and amenable to copy-paste). > > > > > > > > > + > > > +static void reciprocal_div_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + const struct u32_test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > > > + struct reciprocal_value rv = reciprocal_value(test_param->b); > > > + > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > > > + reciprocal_divide(test_param->a, rv), > > > + "reciprocal_divide(%u, %u)", > > > + test_param->a, test_param->b); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void reciprocal_scale_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(0u, 100), 0u); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u, 100), 0u); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 4, 1 << 28), 1u); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 16, 1 << 28), 1u << 12); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(~0u, 1 << 28), (1u << 28) - 1); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static struct kunit_case math_test_cases[] = { > > > + KUNIT_CASE(abs_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(int_sqrt_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(round_up_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(round_down_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_up_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_closest_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(gcd_test, gcd_gen_params), > > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(lcm_test, lcm_gen_params), > > > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(reciprocal_div_test, reciprocal_div_gen_params), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(reciprocal_scale_test), > > > + {} > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static struct kunit_suite math_test_suite = { > > > + .name = "lib-math", > > > + .test_cases = math_test_cases, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +kunit_test_suites(&math_test_suite); > > > + > > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > > > > > base-commit: 4fa56ad0d12e24df768c98bffe9039f915d1bc02 > > > -- > > > 2.31.1.295.g9ea45b61b8-goog > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math 2021-04-12 19:07 [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math Daniel Latypov 2021-04-13 6:41 ` David Gow @ 2021-09-03 2:26 ` Daniel Latypov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-09-03 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andriy.shevchenko Cc: brendanhiggins, davidgow, linux-kernel, kunit-dev, linux-kselftest, skhan On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:07 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options: > * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros) > * gcd.c > * lcm.c > * int_sqrt.c > * reciprocal_div.c > (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.) > > These tests aren't particularly interesting, but they > * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests > * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir > * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy > * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files Bumping this thread to see what the status is. I think it's useful to have tests spread across the kernel so there's "nearby" tests one can reference and/or copy-paste from. Now there's the lib/math/rational-test.c, there's less need here. But I think having tests for simpler functions is still nice to have. E.g. there's a performance trade-off documented in gcd.c If you'd want to run that test case to see if it still holds, you'd be able to run gcd() in a loop fairly easily with: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/math lib-math.gcd_test (KUnit doesn't yet have support for timing tests or running tests multiple times, so you'd have to tweak the test code for that). Random fact: I'd noticed that after running some 1000s of internal integration tests , the gcd() function didn't actually get fully covered. Specifically, they never got to line 34, the for loop 23 unsigned long gcd(unsigned long a, unsigned long b) 24 { 25 unsigned long r = a | b; 26 27 if (!a || !b) 28 return r; 29 30 b >>= __ffs(b); 31 if (b == 1) 32 return r & -r; 33 34 for (;;) { Checking again now, a few months later, I see they now do hit that loop. But I guess until then, we'd only been calling gcd() with b=2^n. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > --- > Changes since v4: > * add in test cases for some math.h macros (abs, round_up/round_down, > div_round_down/closest) > * use parameterized testing less to keep things terser > > Changes since v3: > * fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings > * add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0) > * minor: don't test both gcd(a,b) and gcd(b,a) when a == b > > Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c > > Changes since v1: > * Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support. > * misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string. > * related: commit 1f0e943df68a ("Documentation: kunit: provide guidance > for testing many inputs") was merged explaining the patterns shown here. > * there's an in-flight patch to update it for parameterized testing. > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com/ > --- > lib/math/Kconfig | 5 + > lib/math/Makefile | 2 + > lib/math/math_kunit.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 lib/math/math_kunit.c > > diff --git a/lib/math/Kconfig b/lib/math/Kconfig > index f19bc9734fa7..6ba8680439c1 100644 > --- a/lib/math/Kconfig > +++ b/lib/math/Kconfig > @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@ config PRIME_NUMBERS > > config RATIONAL > bool > + > +config MATH_KUNIT_TEST > + tristate "KUnit test for lib/math" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + depends on KUNIT > diff --git a/lib/math/Makefile b/lib/math/Makefile > index be6909e943bd..30abb7a8d564 100644 > --- a/lib/math/Makefile > +++ b/lib/math/Makefile > @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@ obj-y += div64.o gcd.o lcm.o int_pow.o int_sqrt.o reciprocal_div.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CORDIC) += cordic.o > obj-$(CONFIG_PRIME_NUMBERS) += prime_numbers.o > obj-$(CONFIG_RATIONAL) += rational.o > + > +obj-$(CONFIG_MATH_KUNIT_TEST) += math_kunit.o > diff --git a/lib/math/math_kunit.c b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..80a087a32884 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/math/math_kunit.c > @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * Simple KUnit suite for math helper funcs that are always enabled. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2020, Google LLC. > + * Author: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > + */ > + > +#include <kunit/test.h> > +#include <linux/gcd.h> > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/lcm.h> > +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> > + > +static void abs_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('\0'), '\0'); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs('a'), 'a'); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-'a'), 'a'); > + > + /* The expression in the macro is actually promoted to an int. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)0), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)42), 42); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs((short)-42), 42); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42), 42); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42), 42); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0L), 0L); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42L), 42L); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42L), 42L); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0LL), 0LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42LL), 42LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(-42LL), 42LL); > + > + /* Unsigned types get casted to signed. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(0ULL), 0LL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, abs(42ULL), 42LL); > +} > + > +static void int_sqrt_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(0UL), 0UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL), 1UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(4UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(5UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(8UL), 2UL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, int_sqrt(1UL << 30), 1UL << 15); > +} > + > +static void round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(1, 2), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up(3, 2), 4); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 2), 1 << 30); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_up((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 30); > +} > + > +static void round_down_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(1, 2), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down(3, 2), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 2), (1 << 30) - 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, round_down((1 << 30) - 1, 1 << 29), 1 << 29); > +} > + > +static void div_round_up_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(20, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 10), 3); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 20), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_UP(21, 99), 1); > +} > + > +static void div_round_closest_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(0, 1), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(20, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(21, 10), 2); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(25, 10), 3); > +} > + > +/* Generic test case for unsigned long inputs. */ > +struct test_case { > + unsigned long a, b; > + unsigned long result; > +}; > + > +static struct test_case gcd_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 1, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 4, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3, .b = 5, > + .result = 1, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 9, .b = 3 * 5, > + .result = 3, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 5 * 7, .b = 3 * 5 * 11, > + .result = 15, > + }, > + { > + .a = 1 << 21, > + .b = (1 << 21) - 1, > + .result = 1, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(gcd, gcd_cases, NULL); > + > +static void gcd_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const char *message_fmt = "gcd(%lu, %lu)"; > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + gcd(test_param->a, test_param->b), > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > + test_param->b); > + > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > + return; > + > + /* gcd(a,b) == gcd(b,a) */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + gcd(test_param->b, test_param->a), > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > + test_param->a); > +} > + > +static struct test_case lcm_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 0, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 1, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 2, .b = 2, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 3 * 5, .b = 3 * 7, > + .result = 3 * 5 * 7, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(lcm, lcm_cases, NULL); > + > +static void lcm_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const char *message_fmt = "lcm(%lu, %lu)"; > + const struct test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + lcm(test_param->a, test_param->b), > + message_fmt, test_param->a, > + test_param->b); > + > + if (test_param->a == test_param->b) > + return; > + > + /* lcm(a,b) == lcm(b,a) */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + lcm(test_param->b, test_param->a), > + message_fmt, test_param->b, > + test_param->a); > +} > + > +struct u32_test_case { > + u32 a, b; > + u32 result; > +}; > + > +static struct u32_test_case reciprocal_div_cases[] = { > + { > + .a = 0, .b = 1, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = 42, .b = 20, > + .result = 2, > + }, > + { > + .a = 42, .b = 9999, > + .result = 0, > + }, > + { > + .a = (1 << 16), .b = (1 << 14), > + .result = 1 << 2, > + }, > +}; > + > +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(reciprocal_div, reciprocal_div_cases, NULL); > + > +static void reciprocal_div_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + const struct u32_test_case *test_param = test->param_value; > + struct reciprocal_value rv = reciprocal_value(test_param->b); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, test_param->result, > + reciprocal_divide(test_param->a, rv), > + "reciprocal_divide(%u, %u)", > + test_param->a, test_param->b); > +} > + > +static void reciprocal_scale_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(0u, 100), 0u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u, 100), 0u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 4, 1 << 28), 1u); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(1u << 16, 1 << 28), 1u << 12); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, reciprocal_scale(~0u, 1 << 28), (1u << 28) - 1); > +} > + > +static struct kunit_case math_test_cases[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(abs_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(int_sqrt_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(round_up_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(round_down_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_up_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(div_round_closest_test), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(gcd_test, gcd_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(lcm_test, lcm_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(reciprocal_div_test, reciprocal_div_gen_params), > + KUNIT_CASE(reciprocal_scale_test), > + {} > +}; > + > +static struct kunit_suite math_test_suite = { > + .name = "lib-math", > + .test_cases = math_test_cases, > +}; > + > +kunit_test_suites(&math_test_suite); > + > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > base-commit: 4fa56ad0d12e24df768c98bffe9039f915d1bc02 > -- > 2.31.1.295.g9ea45b61b8-goog > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-03 2:26 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-04-12 19:07 [PATCH v5] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math Daniel Latypov 2021-04-13 6:41 ` David Gow 2021-04-14 0:33 ` Daniel Latypov 2021-04-16 18:10 ` Daniel Latypov 2021-09-03 2:26 ` Daniel Latypov
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).