linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] 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]

Message-Id: <20190715201054.C69AA2086C@mail.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:10:53 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        frowand.list@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, keescook@...gle.com,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, robh@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        tytso@....edu, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com
Cc:     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, 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, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        richard@....at, rientjes@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        wfg@...ux.intel.com, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:27)
> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
> we call them test_modules).
> 
> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
> expectations on code will be defined later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>

Minor nits below.

> diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..571e4c65deb5c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kunit/test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +
> +static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);
> +}
> +
[...]
> +
> +void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name)
> +{
> +       test->name = name;
> +       test->success = true;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Performs all logic to run a test case.
> + */
> +static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> +                          struct kunit_case *test_case)
> +{
> +       struct kunit test;
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name);
> +
> +       if (suite->init) {
> +               ret = suite->init(&test);

Can you push the ret definition into this if scope? That way we can
avoid default initialize to 0 for it.

> +               if (ret) {
> +                       kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret);
> +                       kunit_set_failure(&test);

Do we need to 'test_case->success = test.success' here too? Or is the
test failure extracted somewhere else?

> +                       return;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       test_case->run_case(&test);
> +
> +       if (suite->exit)
> +               suite->exit(&test);
> +
> +       test_case->success = test.success;