lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 08:44:51 +0100 From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> To: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 06:14, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> wrote: [...] > >> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > >> index a423fffefea0..16bf9f334e2c 100644 > >> --- a/include/kunit/test.h > >> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > >> @@ -142,6 +142,12 @@ struct kunit_case { > >> void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test); > >> const char *name; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * Pointer to test parameter generator function. > >> + * Used only for parameterized tests. > > > > What I meant was to give a description of the protocol, so that if > > somebody wanted, they could (without reading the implementation) > > implement their own custom generator without the helper macro. > > > > E.g. something like: "The generator function is used to lazily > > generate a series of arbitrarily typed values that fit into a void*. > > The argument @prev is the previously returned value, which should be > > used to derive the next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial > > generator call. When no more values are available, the generator must > > return NULL." > > > > Oh okay. I am not sure if this is the best place to add documentation for this. I think it doesn't hurt to add, but have a look at the comment above this struct, which is already a kernel-doc comment. It probably makes sense to move the comment there to describe the new variable. Thanks, -- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists