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 13:21:13 +0530 From: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.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 27/10/20 1:14 pm, Marco Elver wrote: > 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. > Alright, I will move the comment there. > Thanks, > -- Marco > Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists