Message-ID: <CAFd5g446J=cVW4QW+QeZMLDi+ANqshAW6KTrFFBTusPcdr6-GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:27:49 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@...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>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...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>,
        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 v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brendan,
> >>
> >> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>> 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>
> >>> ---
> >>>    include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    kunit/Kconfig        |  17 ++++
> >>>    kunit/Makefile       |   1 +
> >>>    kunit/test.c         | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
> >>>    create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
> >>>    create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
> >>>    create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
> >>>    create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
> >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> >>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> >>> + */
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
> >>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
> >>> +
> >>> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>> +
> >>> +struct kunit;
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
> >>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
> >>> + * @name: the name of the test case.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
> >>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
> >>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
> >>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
> >>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
> >>> + * empty test case.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Example:
> >>
> >> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
> >> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
> >> and wrap.
> >
> > None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
> > width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
> >
> > My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
> > you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
> > being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
> > they are only 80 chars.
> >
> >>
> >> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
> >
> > Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
> > lines in this file.
> >
> > Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
> > confirm either way.
> >
>
> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
> +                */                                                            \
>
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked

Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
it without removing the comment from inside the macro.

I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
in the user documentation.

> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.

Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.

Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
substantial change to make.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists