linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABVgOS=A2jBjyspJHLK7Pc3+2HzK6NWFKDtejCVO88UnLySRig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 12:16:37 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 2:04 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options:
> * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used macros)
> * 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
> * provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests
> * provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
> * are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
>   * looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> ---

Thanks: I've tested this version, and am happy with it. A part of me
still kind-of would like there to be names for the parameters, but I
definitely understand that it doesn't really work well for the lcm and
gcd cases where we're doing both (a,b) and (b,a). So let's keep it
as-is.

Hopefully we can get these in for 5.13!

Cheers,
-- David