linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit

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: <CAJ-ks9mMgkdNEHHKELa=5gNz+CzUNno08ZKJwwQDVEb5WvN32A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:22:39 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:11 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:47:49AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
> >
> > In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
> > rename the file in accordance with usual kunit conventions nor does it
> > refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
> > test case.
>
> Rename of the file may be done, but you need to use -M -C when formatting
> patch, in such a case the diff will be moderate in side and easy to review.

If you prefer that I rename the file, I can do so in v2.

Can you explain what you mean by using -M -C? The formatting was done
by hand, is there an automated tool? I tried using clang-format but
the result was a change on almost every line.

Note also that though it looks like a lot of formatting has changed,
in reality almost every changed line has non-formatting changes due to
passing `test` around.

> P.S. The test modules in defconfig is something which puzzling me. I would
> remove all of them at once, if somebody wants debug configuration, they would
> specify it and use with help of merge_config or alike.

I'm not sure what you mean? I removed instances of CONFIG_TEST_SCANF
from defconfig because that option no longer exists.

Cheers.

Tamir