linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:04:30 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:02 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:33:52)
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:08)
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, condition) \
> > > > +               KUNIT_TRUE_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, condition)
> > >
> > > A lot of these macros seem double indented.
> >
> > In a case you pointed out in the preceding patch, I was just keeping the
> > arguments column aligned.
> >
> > In this case I am just indenting two tabs for a line continuation. I
> > thought I found other instances in the kernel that did this early on
> > (and that's also what the Linux kernel vim plugin wanted me to do).
> > After a couple of spot checks, it seems like one tab for this kind of
> > line continuation seems more common. I personally don't feel strongly
> > about any particular version. I just want to know now what the correct
> > indentation is for macros before I go through and change them all.
> >
> > I think there are three cases:
> >
> > #define macro0(param0, param1) \
> >                 a_really_long_macro(...)
> >
> > In this first case, I use two tabs for the first indent, I think you are
> > telling me this should be one tab.
>
> Yes. Should be one.
>
> >
> > #define macro1(param0, param1) {                                               \
> >         statement_in_a_block0;                                                 \
> >         statement_in_a_block1;                                                 \
> >         ...                                                                    \
> > }
> >
> > In this case, every line is in a block and is indented as it would be in
> > a function body. I think you are okay with this, and now that I am
> > thinking about it, what I think you are proposing for macro0 will make
> > these two cases more consistent.
> >
> > #define macro2(param0,                                                         \
> >                param1,                                                         \
> >                param2,                                                         \
> >                param3,                                                         \
> >                ...,                                                            \
> >                paramn) ...                                                     \
> >
> > In this last case, the body would be indented as in macro0, or macro1,
> > but the parameters passed into the macro are column aligned, consistent
> > with one of the acceptable ways of formatting function parameters that
> > don't fit on a single line.
> >
> > In all cases, I put 1 space in between the closing parameter paren and
> > the line continuation `\`, if only one `\` is needed. Otherwise, I align
> > all the `\s` to the 80th column. Is this okay, or would you prefer that
> > I align them all to the 80th column, or something else?
> >
>
> This all sounds fine and I'm not nitpicking this style. Just the double
> tabs making lines longer than required.

Sounds good. Will do.