From: brendanhiggins at google.com (Brendan Higgins) Subject: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:44:23 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFd5g46NehKo=TT4reQ8r74bDTG9BkR=ELg+Q3n5YooUxFwBmA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+09Kx7yMBC_Jw45QGmk6U_fp4N6HOZDwYrM4tWw+_dOA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins > <brendanhiggins at google.com> wrote: > > > > Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to > > run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API. > > Nice! You beat me to it. This is probably going to conflict with what > is in the DT tree for 4.21. Also, please Cc the DT list for > drivers/of/ changes. > > Looks good to me, but a few mostly formatting comments below. I just realized that we never talked about your other comments, and I still have some questions. (Sorry, it was the last thing I looked at while getting v4 ready.) No worries if you don't get to it before I send v4 out, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins at google.com> > > --- > > drivers/of/Kconfig | 1 + > > drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > 2 files changed, 752 insertions(+), 654 deletions(-) > > <snip> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c > > index 41b49716ac75f..a5ef44730ffdb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c <snip> > > - > > -static void __init of_unittest_find_node_by_name(void) > > +static void of_unittest_find_node_by_name(struct kunit *test) > > Why do we have to drop __init everywhere? The tests run later? >From the standpoint of a unit test __init doesn't really make any sense, right? I know that right now we are running as part of a kernel, but the goal should be that a unit test is not part of a kernel and we just include what we need. Even so, that's the future. For now, I did not put the KUnit infrastructure in the .init section because I didn't think it belonged there. In practice, KUnit only knows how to run during the init phase of the kernel, but I don't think it should be restricted there. You should be able to run tests whenever you want because you should be able to test anything right? I figured any restriction on that is misleading and will potentially get in the way at worst, and unnecessary at best especially since people shouldn't build a production kernel with all kinds of unit tests inside. > > > { > > struct device_node *np; > > const char *options, *name; > > <snip> > > > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/missing-path"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/missing-path"), > > + NULL, > > + "non-existent path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > 1 tab indent would help with less vertical code (in general, not this > one so much). Will do. > > > of_node_put(np); > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("missing-alias"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent alias returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_find_node_by_path("missing-alias"), NULL, > > + "non-existent alias returned node %pOF\n", np); > > of_node_put(np); > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("testcase-alias/missing-path"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent alias with relative path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_find_node_by_path("testcase-alias/missing-path"), > > + NULL, > > + "non-existent alias with relative path returned node %pOF\n", > > + np); > > of_node_put(np); > > <snip> > > > > -static void __init of_unittest_property_string(void) > > +static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > > { > > const char *strings[4]; > > struct device_node *np; > > int rc; > > > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > > - if (!np) { > > - pr_err("No testcase data in device tree\n"); > > - return; > > - } > > - > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"); > > - unittest(rc == 0, "first expected:0 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"); > > - unittest(rc == 1, "second expected:1 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"); > > - unittest(rc == 2, "third expected:2 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"); > > - unittest(rc == -ENODATA, "unmatched string; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -EINVAL, "missing property; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -ENODATA, "empty property; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -EILSEQ, "unterminated string; rc=%i\n", rc); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "first"), > > + 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "second"), > > + 1); > > Fewer lines on these would be better even if we go over 80 chars. On the of_property_match_string(...), I have no opinion. I will do whatever you like best. Nevertheless, as far as the KUNIT_EXPECT_*(...), I do have an opinion: I am trying to establish a good, readable convention. Given an expect statement structured as ``` KUNIT_EXPECT_*( test, expect_arg_0, ..., expect_arg_n, fmt_str, fmt_arg_0, ..., fmt_arg_n) ``` where `test` is the `struct kunit` context argument, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` are the arguments the expectations is being made about (so in the above example, `of_property_match_string(...)` and `1`), and `fmt_*` is the optional format string that comes at the end of some expectations. The pattern I had been trying to promote is the following: 1) If everything fits on 1 line, do that. 2) If you must make a line split, prefer to keep `test` on its own line, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` should be kept together, if possible, and the format string should follow the conventions already most commonly used with format strings. 3) If you must split up `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` each argument should get its own line and should not share a line with either `test` or any `fmt_*`. The reason I care about this so much is because expectations should be extremely easy to read; they are the most important part of a unit test because they tell you what the test is verifying. I am not married to the formatting I proposed above, but I want something that will be extremely easy to identify the arguments that the expectation is on. Maybe that means that I need to add some syntactic fluff to make it clearer, I don't know, but this is definitely something we need to get right, especially in the earliest examples. > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "third"), > > + 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "fourth"), > > + -ENODATA, > > + "unmatched string"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "missing-property", > > + "blah"), > > + -EINVAL, > > + "missing property"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "empty-property", > > + "blah"), > > + -ENODATA, > > + "empty property"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "unterminated-string", > > + "blah"), > > + -EILSEQ, > > + "unterminated string"); <snip> > > /* test insertion of a bus with parent devices */ > > -static void __init of_unittest_overlay_10(void) > > +static void of_unittest_overlay_10(struct kunit *test) > > { > > - int ret; > > char *child_path; > > > > /* device should disable */ > > - ret = of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(10, 10, 0, 1, PDEV_OVERLAY); > > - if (unittest(ret == 0, > > - "overlay test %d failed; overlay application\n", 10)) > > - return; > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(test, > > + 10, > > + 10, > > + 0, > > + 1, > > + PDEV_OVERLAY), > > I prefer putting multiple args on a line and having fewer lines. Looking at this now, I tend to agree, but I don't think I saw a consistent way to break them up for these functions. I figured there should be some type of pattern. > > > + 0, > > + "overlay test %d failed; overlay application\n", > > + 10); > > > > child_path = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s/test-unittest101", > > unittest_path(10, PDEV_OVERLAY)); > > - if (unittest(child_path, "overlay test %d failed; kasprintf\n", 10)) > > - return; > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, child_path); > > > > - ret = of_path_device_type_exists(child_path, PDEV_OVERLAY); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, > > + of_path_device_type_exists(child_path, > > + PDEV_OVERLAY), > > + "overlay test %d failed; no child device\n", 10); > > kfree(child_path); > > - > > - unittest(ret, "overlay test %d failed; no child device\n", 10); > > } <snip>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: brendanhiggins@google.com (Brendan Higgins) Subject: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:44:23 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFd5g46NehKo=TT4reQ8r74bDTG9BkR=ELg+Q3n5YooUxFwBmA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190213014423.--10FONwrmoia4QQxpqFO5ZnpX9r1LhCbXakNvYAFnw@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+09Kx7yMBC_Jw45QGmk6U_fp4N6HOZDwYrM4tWw+_dOA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018@12:56 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins > <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > > > > Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to > > run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API. > > Nice! You beat me to it. This is probably going to conflict with what > is in the DT tree for 4.21. Also, please Cc the DT list for > drivers/of/ changes. > > Looks good to me, but a few mostly formatting comments below. I just realized that we never talked about your other comments, and I still have some questions. (Sorry, it was the last thing I looked at while getting v4 ready.) No worries if you don't get to it before I send v4 out, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins at google.com> > > --- > > drivers/of/Kconfig | 1 + > > drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > 2 files changed, 752 insertions(+), 654 deletions(-) > > <snip> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c > > index 41b49716ac75f..a5ef44730ffdb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c <snip> > > - > > -static void __init of_unittest_find_node_by_name(void) > > +static void of_unittest_find_node_by_name(struct kunit *test) > > Why do we have to drop __init everywhere? The tests run later? >From the standpoint of a unit test __init doesn't really make any sense, right? I know that right now we are running as part of a kernel, but the goal should be that a unit test is not part of a kernel and we just include what we need. Even so, that's the future. For now, I did not put the KUnit infrastructure in the .init section because I didn't think it belonged there. In practice, KUnit only knows how to run during the init phase of the kernel, but I don't think it should be restricted there. You should be able to run tests whenever you want because you should be able to test anything right? I figured any restriction on that is misleading and will potentially get in the way at worst, and unnecessary at best especially since people shouldn't build a production kernel with all kinds of unit tests inside. > > > { > > struct device_node *np; > > const char *options, *name; > > <snip> > > > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/missing-path"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/missing-path"), > > + NULL, > > + "non-existent path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > 1 tab indent would help with less vertical code (in general, not this > one so much). Will do. > > > of_node_put(np); > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("missing-alias"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent alias returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_find_node_by_path("missing-alias"), NULL, > > + "non-existent alias returned node %pOF\n", np); > > of_node_put(np); > > > > - np = of_find_node_by_path("testcase-alias/missing-path"); > > - unittest(!np, "non-existent alias with relative path returned node %pOF\n", np); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_find_node_by_path("testcase-alias/missing-path"), > > + NULL, > > + "non-existent alias with relative path returned node %pOF\n", > > + np); > > of_node_put(np); > > <snip> > > > > -static void __init of_unittest_property_string(void) > > +static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > > { > > const char *strings[4]; > > struct device_node *np; > > int rc; > > > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > > - if (!np) { > > - pr_err("No testcase data in device tree\n"); > > - return; > > - } > > - > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"); > > - unittest(rc == 0, "first expected:0 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"); > > - unittest(rc == 1, "second expected:1 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"); > > - unittest(rc == 2, "third expected:2 got:%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"); > > - unittest(rc == -ENODATA, "unmatched string; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -EINVAL, "missing property; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -ENODATA, "empty property; rc=%i\n", rc); > > - rc = of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"); > > - unittest(rc == -EILSEQ, "unterminated string; rc=%i\n", rc); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "first"), > > + 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "second"), > > + 1); > > Fewer lines on these would be better even if we go over 80 chars. On the of_property_match_string(...), I have no opinion. I will do whatever you like best. Nevertheless, as far as the KUNIT_EXPECT_*(...), I do have an opinion: I am trying to establish a good, readable convention. Given an expect statement structured as ``` KUNIT_EXPECT_*( test, expect_arg_0, ..., expect_arg_n, fmt_str, fmt_arg_0, ..., fmt_arg_n) ``` where `test` is the `struct kunit` context argument, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` are the arguments the expectations is being made about (so in the above example, `of_property_match_string(...)` and `1`), and `fmt_*` is the optional format string that comes at the end of some expectations. The pattern I had been trying to promote is the following: 1) If everything fits on 1 line, do that. 2) If you must make a line split, prefer to keep `test` on its own line, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` should be kept together, if possible, and the format string should follow the conventions already most commonly used with format strings. 3) If you must split up `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` each argument should get its own line and should not share a line with either `test` or any `fmt_*`. The reason I care about this so much is because expectations should be extremely easy to read; they are the most important part of a unit test because they tell you what the test is verifying. I am not married to the formatting I proposed above, but I want something that will be extremely easy to identify the arguments that the expectation is on. Maybe that means that I need to add some syntactic fluff to make it clearer, I don't know, but this is definitely something we need to get right, especially in the earliest examples. > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "third"), > > + 2); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "phandle-list-names", > > + "fourth"), > > + -ENODATA, > > + "unmatched string"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "missing-property", > > + "blah"), > > + -EINVAL, > > + "missing property"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "empty-property", > > + "blah"), > > + -ENODATA, > > + "empty property"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_property_match_string(np, > > + "unterminated-string", > > + "blah"), > > + -EILSEQ, > > + "unterminated string"); <snip> > > /* test insertion of a bus with parent devices */ > > -static void __init of_unittest_overlay_10(void) > > +static void of_unittest_overlay_10(struct kunit *test) > > { > > - int ret; > > char *child_path; > > > > /* device should disable */ > > - ret = of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(10, 10, 0, 1, PDEV_OVERLAY); > > - if (unittest(ret == 0, > > - "overlay test %d failed; overlay application\n", 10)) > > - return; > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, > > + of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(test, > > + 10, > > + 10, > > + 0, > > + 1, > > + PDEV_OVERLAY), > > I prefer putting multiple args on a line and having fewer lines. Looking at this now, I tend to agree, but I don't think I saw a consistent way to break them up for these functions. I figured there should be some type of pattern. > > > + 0, > > + "overlay test %d failed; overlay application\n", > > + 10); > > > > child_path = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s/test-unittest101", > > unittest_path(10, PDEV_OVERLAY)); > > - if (unittest(child_path, "overlay test %d failed; kasprintf\n", 10)) > > - return; > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, child_path); > > > > - ret = of_path_device_type_exists(child_path, PDEV_OVERLAY); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, > > + of_path_device_type_exists(child_path, > > + PDEV_OVERLAY), > > + "overlay test %d failed; no child device\n", 10); > > kfree(child_path); > > - > > - unittest(ret, "overlay test %d failed; no child device\n", 10); > > } <snip>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 1:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 232+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-11-28 19:36 [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:14 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:14 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 1:51 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 1:51 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 2:57 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 2:57 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-05 13:15 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-05 13:15 ` Anton Ivanov 2018-12-05 14:45 ` arnd 2018-12-05 14:45 ` Arnd Bergmann 2018-12-05 14:49 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-05 14:49 ` Anton Ivanov 2018-11-30 3:28 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:28 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 2:08 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 2:08 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:10 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:10 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 22:47 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 22:47 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:02 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:02 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 02/19] kunit: test: add test resource management API brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 03/19] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream like string builder brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:29 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:29 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 2:14 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 2:14 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:12 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:12 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 10:55 ` pmladek 2018-12-03 10:55 ` Petr Mladek 2018-12-04 0:35 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:35 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 04/19] kunit: test: add test_stream a std::stream like logger brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 05/19] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 06/19] arch: um: enable running kunit from User Mode Linux brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 21:26 ` robh 2018-11-28 21:26 ` Rob Herring 2018-11-30 3:37 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:37 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-30 14:05 ` robh 2018-11-30 14:05 ` Rob Herring 2018-11-30 18:22 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 18:22 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:22 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:22 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:30 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:30 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 07/19] kunit: test: add initial tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:40 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:40 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:26 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:26 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-03 23:43 ` mcgrof 2018-12-03 23:43 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 08/19] arch: um: add shim to trap to allow installing a fault catcher for tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:34 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:34 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:34 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:34 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-03 23:46 ` mcgrof 2018-12-03 23:46 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-04 0:44 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:44 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:41 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:41 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:37 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:37 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 09/19] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 10/19] kunit: test: add test managed resource tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 11/19] kunit: add Python libraries for handing KUnit config and kernel brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-29 13:54 ` kieran.bingham 2018-11-29 13:54 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-03 23:48 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:48 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 20:47 ` mcgrof 2018-12-04 20:47 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-06 12:32 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-06 12:32 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-06 15:37 ` willy 2018-12-06 15:37 ` Matthew Wilcox 2018-12-07 11:30 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-07 11:30 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-11 14:09 ` pmladek 2018-12-11 14:09 ` Petr Mladek 2018-12-11 14:41 ` rostedt 2018-12-11 14:41 ` Steven Rostedt 2018-12-11 17:01 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-11 17:01 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-02-09 0:40 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-09 0:40 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-07 1:05 ` mcgrof 2018-12-07 1:05 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-07 18:35 ` kent.overstreet 2018-12-07 18:35 ` Kent Overstreet 2018-11-30 3:44 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:44 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:50 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:50 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 20:48 ` mcgrof 2018-12-04 20:48 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 12/19] kunit: add KUnit wrapper script and simple output parser brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 13/19] kunit: improve output from python wrapper brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-29 13:56 ` kieran.bingham 2018-11-29 13:56 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-11-30 3:45 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:45 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:53 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:53 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-06 12:16 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-06 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-09 0:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-09 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-11 12:16 ` kieran.bingham 2019-02-11 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-12 22:10 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-12 22:10 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-13 21:55 ` kieran.bingham 2019-02-13 21:55 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-14 0:17 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 0:17 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 17:26 ` mcgrof 2019-02-14 17:26 ` Luis Chamberlain 2019-02-14 22:07 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 22:07 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 15/19] MAINTAINERS: add entry for KUnit the unit testing framework brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 16/19] arch: um: make UML unflatten device tree when testing brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 21:16 ` robh 2018-11-28 21:16 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-04 0:00 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:00 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:46 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:46 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-04 0:02 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:02 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins [not found] ` <CAL_Jsq+09Kx7yMBC_Jw45QGmk6U_fp4N6HOZDwYrM4tWw+_dOA@mail.gmail.com> 2018-11-30 0:39 ` rdunlap 2018-11-30 0:39 ` Randy Dunlap 2018-12-04 0:13 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:13 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 13:40 ` robh 2018-12-04 13:40 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-05 23:42 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:42 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-07 0:41 ` robh 2018-12-07 0:41 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-04 0:08 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:08 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-13 1:44 ` brendanhiggins [this message] 2019-02-13 1:44 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 20:10 ` robh 2019-02-14 20:10 ` Rob Herring 2019-02-14 21:52 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 21:52 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-18 22:56 ` frowand.list 2019-02-18 22:56 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-28 0:29 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-28 0:29 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:56 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:56 ` Frank Rowand 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:58 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:58 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-05 23:54 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:54 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 23:57 ` frowand.list 2019-02-14 23:57 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-15 0:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-15 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-15 2:05 ` frowand.list 2019-02-15 2:05 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-15 10:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-15 10:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-18 22:25 ` frowand.list 2019-02-18 22:25 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-20 20:44 ` frowand.list 2019-02-20 20:44 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-20 20:47 ` frowand.list 2019-02-20 20:47 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-28 3:52 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-28 3:52 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 0:22 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 0:22 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-22 1:30 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-22 1:30 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 1:47 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 1:47 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:15 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:15 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-09-20 16:57 ` Rob Herring 2019-09-21 23:57 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-22 1:34 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 1:34 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:18 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:18 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 19/19] of: unittest: split up some super large test cases brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:52 ` [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:52 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-04 11:40 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 11:40 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-04 13:49 ` robh 2018-12-04 13:49 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-05 23:10 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:10 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 0:27 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 0:27 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:04 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:04 ` Brendan Higgins
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='CAFd5g46NehKo=TT4reQ8r74bDTG9BkR=ELg+Q3n5YooUxFwBmA@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).