linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: add Kunit tests for cmd_xfer

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: <CABXOdTf=G4hWfvS-Pt+mHUnXzX7Sz9Z-LE_TBSBB2rpEwhfMUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:36:15 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
To:     Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        "open list:CHROME HARDWARE PLATFORM SUPPORT" 
        <chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: add Kunit tests for cmd_xfer_status

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:11 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() calls cros_ec_cmd_xfer() and cros_ec_map_error().
>
> Given that there are already test cases for cros_ec_cmd_xfer(), only add
> basic Kunit tests for cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>

> ---
>  drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c
> index 7d45e5022221..6464f6101fd3 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c
> @@ -1964,6 +1964,46 @@ static void cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_in_progress_return0(struct kunit *test)
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, cros_kunit_ec_pkt_xfer_mock_called, 2);
>  }
>
> +static void cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_status_normal(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct cros_ec_proto_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> +       struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = &priv->ec_dev;
> +       struct ec_xfer_mock *mock;
> +       int ret;
> +       struct cros_ec_command msg;
> +
> +       memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
> +
> +       /* For cros_ec_cmd_xfer(). */
> +       {
> +               mock = cros_kunit_ec_xfer_mock_add(test, 0);
> +               KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(test, mock, NULL);
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(ec_dev, &msg);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_status_xfer_error(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct cros_ec_proto_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> +       struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = &priv->ec_dev;
> +       struct ec_xfer_mock *mock;
> +       int ret;
> +       struct cros_ec_command msg;
> +
> +       memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
> +
> +       /* For cros_ec_cmd_xfer(). */
> +       {
> +               mock = cros_kunit_ec_xfer_mock_addx(test, -EPROTO, EC_RES_SUCCESS, 0);
> +               KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(test, mock, NULL);
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(ec_dev, &msg);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, -EPROTO);
> +}
> +
>  static void cros_ec_proto_test_release(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  }
> @@ -2044,6 +2084,8 @@ static struct kunit_case cros_ec_proto_test_cases[] = {
>         KUNIT_CASE(cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_in_progress_xfer_error),
>         KUNIT_CASE(cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_in_progress_return_error),
>         KUNIT_CASE(cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_in_progress_return0),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_status_normal),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(cros_ec_proto_test_cmd_xfer_status_xfer_error),
>         {}
>  };
>
> --
> 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
>