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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:22:22 -0800 From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com> To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.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@...il.com> > > > > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.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@...gle.com> > > > Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists