linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: time: Add faster unit test with shorter time range

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: <CA+GJov6j7Spi2bPki2Z2rDp+AarkM0dwrXjPKrVksDw0Uo2D0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:44:23 -0400
From: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: time: Add faster unit test with shorter time range

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:30 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/24 12:05, Rae Moar wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 5:01 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Commit a547c4ce10bd ("kunit: time: Mark test as slow using test
> >> attributes") marked the time unit test as slow. This means it does not
> >> run anymore if slow tests are disabled. This reduces test coverage and
> >> is thus undesirable. At the same time, the test currently covers a range
> >> of 160,000 years, which has limited value.
> >>
> >> Add additional test case covering a total range of 1,600 years. This test
> >> takes less than a second to run even on slow systems while still covering
> >> twice the leap year calculation range of 400 years around the center date.
> >> This test can run even with slow tests disabled.
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I really like this addition of another time range test. This looks good to me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Rae
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> >
> >>
> >> Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> >> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >> ---
> >>   kernel/time/time_test.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/time_test.c b/kernel/time/time_test.c
> >> index 3e5d422dd15c..15c6f3a5e73c 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/time/time_test.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/time/time_test.c
> >> @@ -47,18 +47,18 @@ static void advance_date(long *year, int *month, int *mday, int *yday)
> >>   }
> >>
> >>   /*
> >> - * Checks every day in a 160000 years interval centered at 1970-01-01
> >> + * Checks every day in a specified interval centered at 1970-01-01
> >>    * against the expected result.
> >>    */
> >> -static void time64_to_tm_test_date_range(struct kunit *test)
> >> +static void time64_to_tm_test_date_range(struct kunit *test, int years)
> >>   {
> >>          /*
> >> -        * 80000 years  = (80000 / 400) * 400 years
> >> -        *              = (80000 / 400) * 146097 days
> >> -        *              = (80000 / 400) * 146097 * 86400 seconds
> >> +        * years        = (years / 400) * 400 years
> >
> > This is tiny but if there is another version, I find this comment a
> > bit confusing. Could you change this to maybe be "total seconds ="
> > instead of "years =" because years is used as a unit on the right side
> > of the equation?
> >
>
> Good point. "total seconds" might be just as confusing, though.
> How about "total range", "time range", or just "range" ?
>

I see that. Any of those options look fine to me, maybe just "range"?
Whatever you think is best of those.

Thanks!
-Rae

> Thanks,
> Guenter
>