[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502110347.GE12416@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 13:03:47 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc: frowand.list@...il.com, keescook@...gle.com,
kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
robh@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
amir73il@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, daniel@...ll.ch, jdike@...toit.com,
joel@....id.au, julia.lawall@...6.fr, khilman@...libre.com,
knut.omang@...cle.com, logang@...tatee.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
pmladek@...e.com, richard@....at, rientjes@...gle.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, wfg@...ux.intel.com,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/17] kernel/sysctl-test: Add null pointer test for
sysctl.c:proc_dointvec()
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
>
> KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is
> explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including
> int min/max overflow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/Makefile | 2 +
> kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 6 +
> 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c
>
> diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
> index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644
> --- a/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o
You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test
modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"? If so,
that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere.
Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists