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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:26:42 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 kunit-next 2/3] kunit: add log test

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:28 AM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> the logging test ensures multiple strings logged appear in the
> log string associated with the test when CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS is
> enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>

One minor comment below.

> ---
>  lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index aceb5bf..0789060 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -329,6 +329,31 @@ static void kunit_resource_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
>         .exit = kunit_resource_test_exit,
>         .test_cases = kunit_resource_test_cases,
>  };
> -kunit_test_suites(&kunit_try_catch_test_suite, &kunit_resource_test_suite);
> +
> +static void kunit_log_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "put this in log.");
> +       kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "this too.");
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> +                                    strstr(test->log, "put this in log."));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> +                                    strstr(test->log, "this too."));
> +#endif
> +}

Would you mind adding some expectations against the suite log? It
might be good for the sake of completeness.

> +
> +static struct kunit_case kunit_log_test_cases[] = {
> +       KUNIT_CASE(kunit_log_test),
> +       {}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite kunit_log_test_suite = {
> +       .name = "kunit-log-test",
> +       .test_cases = kunit_log_test_cases,
> +};
> +
> +kunit_test_suites(&kunit_try_catch_test_suite, &kunit_resource_test_suite,
> +                 &kunit_log_test_suite);
>
>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists