linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] list: test: Mending tests for list_cut

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: <ZwQKW6-YTGwEo1F6@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 00:20:43 +0800
From: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] list: test: Mending tests for
 list_cut_position()

Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 02:49:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 01:06, I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mending test for list_cut_position*() for the missing check of integer
> > "i" after the second loop. The variable should be checked for second
> > time to make sure both lists after the cut operation are formed as
> > expected.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> Thanks. I've tested this, and it works now and makes sense.
> 
> I would recommend updating the patch description slightly, as it's a
> little bit confusing as-is (partly due to the early version having
> already been applied and reverted).
> Could we describe this (a) in the imperative mood, and (b) focus less
> on this being a "fix" or "mend" and more on what the new check does.
> For example, something like:
> "Check the total number of elements in both resultant lists are
> correct. Previously, only the first list's size was checked, so
> additional elements in the second list would not have been caught."
> 
> Otherwise, this is fine.
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> 
> Thanks for your patience,
> -- David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  lib/list-test.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c
> > index 37cbc33e9fdb..b4b3810c71d0 100644
> > --- a/lib/list-test.c
> > +++ b/lib/list-test.c
> > @@ -408,6 +408,8 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_position(struct kunit *test)
> >                 KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]);
> >                 i++;
> >         }
> > +
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 3);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test)
> > @@ -436,6 +438,8 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test)
> >                 KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]);
> >                 i++;
> >         }
> > +
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 3);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void list_test_list_splice(struct kunit *test)
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20240930170633.42475-1-richard120310%40gmail.com.

Hello Mr. Gow, thanks for your review and sorry for the late reply.

> I would recommend updating the patch description slightly, as it's a
> little bit confusing as-is (partly due to the early version having
> already been applied and reverted).

No problem, I'll refine the commit message, hoever, I want to ask do I
have to send a new patch for this ( since the commit title and commit
message will be different ) , or do I just resent the patch with RESEND
v4 in this thread?

Best regards,
Richard Cheng.