linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] lib/test: Introduce cpumask KUnit test suite

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 05 Jun 2022 08:21:35 +0200
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] lib/test: Introduce cpumask KUnit test suite

Hi Yury,

On Sat, 2022-06-04 at 12:31 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 07:15:56PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > Add a basic suite of tests for cpumask, providing some tests for empty
> > and completely filled cpumasks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
> 
> The test must go after fix, so that it's doesn't cause regressions
> while bisecting.

OK, I'll change the order of the patches.

> 
> > ---
> >  lib/Kconfig.debug  |   9 ++++
> >  lib/Makefile       |   1 +
> >  lib/test_cpumask.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 125 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 lib/test_cpumask.c
> 
> [..]
> 
> > +#define FOR_EACH_ITER_EQ(_test, _iter, _expect, _loop)         \
> > +       do {                                                    \
> > +               (_iter) = 0;                                    \
> > +               _loop                                           \
> > +                       (_iter)++;                              \
> > +               KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ((_test), (_expect), (_iter));   \
> > +       } while (0)
> 
> This one is harder to use than it should be.

Perhaps I tried to hard to make one macro to cover all the cases.

>  Maybe like this? (not tested,
> just an idea)
> 
> #define TEST_FOR_EACH_CPU_EQ(test, mask)                                \
>         do {                                                            \
>                 cpumask_t *m = (mask);                                  \
>                 int iter = 0, cpu;                                      \
>                 for_each_cpu(cpu, m)                                    \
>                         iter++;                                         \
>                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ((test), cpumask_weight(m), iter);       \
>         } while (0)
> 
> static void test_cpumask_iterators(struct kunit *test)
> {
>         TEST_FOR_EACH_CPU(test, &mask_empty);
>         ...
> }
>  
> Similarly for NOT and WRAP.

Thanks for the suggestion, I forgot we don't have to declare all variables at the start of the
function. I'll send an update with a few more specific macros.

Best,
Sander