linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py: remove redundant double check

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: <CAPi66w-D-x_rhv+eQBSPqmqpK3nF2_VuizZPA9dZ0kL1=XAf-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:33:02 +0400
From:   Alexander Pantyukhin <apantykhin@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     brendan.higgins@...ux.dev, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py: remove redundant double check

Hello Daniel.
Thank you very much for your review!
Could you advise me whom I can address the V2 patch "to"?

Best, Alex.

ср, 18 янв. 2023 г. в 01:56, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>:
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 1:05 PM Alexander Pantyukhin
> <apantykhin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The build_tests function contained the doulbe checking for not success
>
> very nit: if we're fixing the "doulbe" typo, can we also do
>   "the doulbe" => "double" (drop the "the")
>
> > result. It is fixed in the current patch. Additional small
> > simplifications of code like useing ternary if were applied (avoid use
> > the same operation by calculation times differ in two places).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Pantyukhin <apantykhin@...il.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
>
> Thanks!
> I can't believe we never noticed the duplicate `if not success` blocks
> before now.
>
> Some minor suggestions below if we're already going to send a v2 out for typos.
>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 17 +++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > index 43fbe96318fe..481c213818bd 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > @@ -77,10 +77,8 @@ def config_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree,
> >         config_start = time.time()
> >         success = linux.build_reconfig(request.build_dir, request.make_options)
> >         config_end = time.time()
> > -       if not success:
> > -               return KunitResult(KunitStatus.CONFIG_FAILURE,
> > -                                  config_end - config_start)
> > -       return KunitResult(KunitStatus.SUCCESS,
> > +       status = KunitStatus.SUCCESS if success else KunitStatus.CONFIG_FAILURE
> > +       return KunitResult(status,
> >                            config_end - config_start)
>
> nit: perhaps we can shorten this to one line, i.e.
>   return KunitResult(status, config_end - config_start)
>
> >
> >  def build_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree,
> > @@ -92,13 +90,8 @@ def build_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree,
> >                                      request.build_dir,
> >                                      request.make_options)
> >         build_end = time.time()
> > -       if not success:
> > -               return KunitResult(KunitStatus.BUILD_FAILURE,
> > -                                  build_end - build_start)
> > -       if not success:
> > -               return KunitResult(KunitStatus.BUILD_FAILURE,
> > -                                  build_end - build_start)
>
> Oh huh, I guess this duplication comes from commit 45ba7a893ad8
> ("kunit: kunit_tool: Separate out config/build/exec/parse")
>
> @@ -64,78 +84,167 @@ def run_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree,
>         build_end = time.time()
>         if not success:
>                 return KunitResult(KunitStatus.BUILD_FAILURE, 'could
> not build kernel')
> +       if not success:
> +               return KunitResult(KunitStatus.BUILD_FAILURE,
> +                                  'could not build kernel',
>
> > -       return KunitResult(KunitStatus.SUCCESS,
> > +       status = KunitStatus.SUCCESS if success else KunitStatus.BUILD_FAILURE
> > +       return KunitResult(status,
> >                            build_end - build_start)
>
> ditto here,
>   return KunitResult(status, build_end - build_start)
>
> >
> >  def config_and_build_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree,
> > @@ -145,7 +138,7 @@ def exec_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree, request: KunitExecRequest) -
> >                 tests = _list_tests(linux, request)
> >                 if request.run_isolated == 'test':
> >                         filter_globs = tests
> > -               if request.run_isolated == 'suite':
> > +               elif request.run_isolated == 'suite':
>
> This is better, thanks.
>
> Daniel