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: <Z50NVYKv7JBn10hj@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:50:13 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.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 12:22:39PM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> 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.

Yes, please.

> Can you explain what you mean by using -M -C?

Parameters to `git format-patch`.

> 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.

There are other options like CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF or so in defconfig files.
Why are they there to begin with? The answer to this Q will affect the change
you have done in this patch.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko