linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math

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]

Message-ID: <20201020080943.GY4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:09:43 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 03:45:56PM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options:
> * gcd.c
> * lcm.c
> * int_sqrt.c
> * reciprocal_div.c
> (Ignored int_pow.c since it's a simple textbook algorithm.)
> 
> These tests aren't particularly interesting, but
> * they're chosen as easy to understand examples of how to write tests
> * provides a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
> * written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy

Is documentation not enough?

I have recently wrote my first KUnit test and I found documentation pretty good
for the start. I think we actually need more complex examples in the code (and
useful).

So, I'm in doubt these test are a good point to start with.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko