From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
shuah <shuah@kernel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
"Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
wfg@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:16:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45PTtPumkpp1i41kkixZaR55pbqaF2DsuKNmh5UyAVwOg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190626033643.GX19023@42.do-not-panic.com>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:36 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:07:32PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:33 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:25:56AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * module_test() - used to register a &struct kunit_module with KUnit.
> > > > + * @module: a statically allocated &struct kunit_module.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Registers @module with the test framework. See &struct kunit_module for more
> > > > + * information.
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define module_test(module) \
> > > > + static int module_kunit_init##module(void) \
> > > > + { \
> > > > + return kunit_run_tests(&module); \
> > > > + } \
> > > > + late_initcall(module_kunit_init##module)
> > >
> > > Becuase late_initcall() is used, if these modules are built-in, this
> > > would preclude the ability to test things prior to this part of the
> > > kernel under UML or whatever architecture runs the tests. So, this
> > > limits the scope of testing. Small detail but the scope whould be
> > > documented.
> >
> > You aren't the first person to complain about this (and I am not sure
> > it is the first time you have complained about it). Anyway, I have
> > some follow on patches that will improve the late_initcall thing, and
> > people seemed okay with discussing the follow on patches as part of a
> > subsequent patchset after this gets merged.
> >
> > I will nevertheless document the restriction until then.
>
> To be clear, I am not complaining about it. I just find it simply
> critical to document its limitations, so folks don't try to invest
> time and energy on kunit right away for an early init test, if it
> cannot support it.
>
> If support for that requires some work, it may be worth mentioning
> as well.
Makes sense. And in anycase, it is something I do want to do, just not
right now. I will put a TODO here in the next revision.
> > > > +static void kunit_print_tap_version(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!kunit_has_printed_tap_version) {
> > > > + kunit_printk_emit(LOGLEVEL_INFO, "TAP version 14\n");
> > >
> > > What is this TAP thing? Why should we care what version it is on?
> > > Why are we printing this?
> >
> > It's part of the TAP specification[1]. Greg and Frank asked me to make
> > the intermediate format conform to TAP. Seems like something else I
> > should probable document...
>
> Yes thanks!
>
> > > > + kunit_has_printed_tap_version = true;
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static size_t kunit_test_cases_len(struct kunit_case *test_cases)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct kunit_case *test_case;
> > > > + size_t len = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (test_case = test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++)
> > >
> > > If we make the last test case NULL, we'd just check for test_case here,
> > > and save ourselves an extra few bytes per test module. Any reason why
> > > the last test case cannot be NULL?
> >
> > Is there anyway to make that work with a statically defined array?
>
> No you're right.
>
> > Basically, I want to be able to do something like:
> >
> > static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = {
> > KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test),
> > KUNIT_CASE(example_mock_test),
> > {}
> > };
> >
> > FYI,
> > #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
>
> >
> > In order to do what you are proposing, I think I need an array of
> > pointers to test cases, which is not ideal.
>
> Yeah, you're right. The only other alternative is to have a:
>
> struct kunit_module {
> const char name[256];
> int (*init)(struct kunit *test);
> void (*exit)(struct kunit *test);
> struct kunit_case *test_cases;
> + unsigned int num_cases;
> };
>
> And then something like:
>
> #define KUNIT_MODULE(name, init, exit, cases) { \
> .name = name, \
> .init = init, \
> .exit = exit, \
> .test_cases = cases,
> num_cases = ARRAY_SIZE(cases), \
> }
>
> Let's evaluate which is better: one extra test case per all test cases, or
> an extra unsigned int for each kunit module.
I am in favor of the current method since init and exit are optional
arguments. I could see myself (actually I am planning on) adding more
optional things to the kunit_module, so having optional arguments will
make my life a lot easier since I won't have to go through big
refactorings around the kernel to support new features that tie in
here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 8:25 [PATCH v5 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:25 ` [PATCH v5 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Brendan Higgins
2019-06-20 0:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-06-25 20:28 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 21:44 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-25 22:14 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 23:02 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-26 6:41 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 22:02 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-27 0:05 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 3:40 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-06-26 23:00 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-27 18:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-06-28 8:09 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 22:33 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-26 0:07 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 3:36 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-26 22:16 ` Brendan Higgins [this message]
2019-06-17 8:25 ` [PATCH v5 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:25 ` [PATCH v5 03/18] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream like string builder Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:25 ` [PATCH v5 04/18] kunit: test: add kunit_stream a std::stream like logger Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 06/18] kbuild: enable building KUnit Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 22:13 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-25 22:41 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 23:03 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 07/18] kunit: test: add initial tests Brendan Higgins
2019-06-25 23:22 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-26 7:53 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-07-02 17:52 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-07-02 20:57 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 08/18] objtool: add kunit_try_catch_throw to the noreturn list Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 09/18] kunit: test: add support for test abort Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 10/18] kunit: test: add tests for kunit " Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 11/18] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 12/18] kunit: test: add tests for KUnit managed resources Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 13/18] kunit: tool: add Python wrappers for running KUnit tests Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 0:01 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-26 8:02 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 22:03 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-27 0:23 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 14/18] kunit: defconfig: add defconfigs for building " Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 15/18] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 16/18] MAINTAINERS: add entry for KUnit the unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 17/18] kernel/sysctl-test: Add null pointer test for sysctl.c:proc_dointvec() Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 2:17 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-27 4:07 ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-06-27 6:10 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-28 8:01 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-28 21:37 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-17 8:26 ` [PATCH v5 18/18] MAINTAINERS: add proc sysctl KUnit test to PROC SYSCTL section Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 2:19 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-06-20 1:17 ` [PATCH v5 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Frank Rowand
2019-06-21 14:59 ` shuah
2019-06-21 18:13 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-06-21 19:20 ` shuah
2019-06-22 0:54 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-07-03 23:40 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-21 23:35 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-06-26 2:38 ` Luis Chamberlain
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=CAFd5g45PTtPumkpp1i41kkixZaR55pbqaF2DsuKNmh5UyAVwOg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com \
--cc=Tim.Bird@sony.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=keescook@google.com \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=knut.omang@oracle.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=wfg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/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
Be 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).