Message-ID: <bb9384cd-bd62-2190-e0da-ed3537aff171@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 13:04:28 -0600
From:   shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
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,
        shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
>>>> complaining and the other is general readability.
>>>
>>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out
>>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it
>>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is
>>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do
>>> it without just removing the comment entirely).
>>>
>>
>> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a
>> kernel-doc comment.
> 
> I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we
> figure out the column limit issue.
> 
>> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in
>> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am
>> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments.
>> I think it makes perfect sense.
> 
> Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my
> local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something
> interesting is going on here.
> 
> To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue
> after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself?
> 

I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this.
Just this patch. All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue.

> Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon
> so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this
> figured out pretty quickly.
> 

Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Powered by blists - more mailing lists