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

Message-ID: <94888143-42b0-4601-bee3-af17f244f831@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:08:55 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
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 3/14/24 12:44, Rae Moar wrote:
> 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.
> 

Let's just use "range". I'll wait a couple of days for additional feedback before
submitting v2.

Thanks,
Guenter