linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 01/14] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:28:43 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     shuah@...nel.org
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        joe@...ches.com, brakmo@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Tim.Bird@...y.com, khilman@...libre.com,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jdike@...toit.com, richard@....at, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/14] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
<snip>
> > + * Example:
> > + *
> > + * .. code-block:: c
> > + *
> > + *   void add_test_basic(struct test *test)
> > + *   {
> > + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
> > + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
> > + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
> > + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
> > + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
> > + *   }
> > + *
> > + *   static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = {
> > + *           TEST_CASE(add_test_basic),
> > + *           {},
> > + *   };
> > + *
> > + */
> > +struct test_case {
> > +     void (*run_case)(struct test *test);
> > +     const char name[256];
> > +
> > +     /* private: internal use only. */
> > +     bool success;
> > +};
> > +
>
> Introducing a prefix kunit_* might be a good idea for the API.
> This comment applies to the rest of patches as well.

What about kunit_* instead of test_* and kmock_* instead of mock_*?
Does that seem reasonable?