Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:58:41 -0700 |
| |
On 12/1/20 4:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This >>>>>>> approach requires the creation of a test case using the >>>>>>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This generator function should return the next parameter given the >>>>>>> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to >>>>>>> generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also >>>>>>> optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is >>>>>>> displayed where available. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in >>>>>>> diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes >>>>>>> TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when >>>>>>> supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!] >>>>>> >>>>>> This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and >>>>>> both worked fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> >>>>>> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sticking with this! >>>>> >>>>> Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't >>>> started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, >>>> though. >>>> >>>> Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first. >>>> >>>> Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork? >>> >>> Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, >>> in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii. >>> >>> Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go >>> ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch >>> 2/2 later. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >> >> I am seeing >> >> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV) >> #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786: >> + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : >> (array); \ >> ^ >> >> Can you look into this and send v10? > > This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before: > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUMg@mail.gmail.com > > checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer, > so the spacing here is correct. >
Thank you for confirming. I will apply this.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |