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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <505b8cd0-a61e-5ec3-7e0b-239d0ff55d56@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:28:41 -0700 From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, 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, skhan@...uxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > 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 > 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? thanks, -- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists