Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >> >> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Brendan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way >>>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test >>>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also >>>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here >>>>>>>>> we call them test_modules). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting >>>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins(a)google.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org&gt; >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang(a)deltatee.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof(a)kernel.org&gt; >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd(a)kernel.org&gt; >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++ >>>>>>>>> kunit/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>>>>> kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 388 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test.c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e >>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ >>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>>>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. >>>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins(a)google.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h> >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +struct kunit; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case. >>>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. >>>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` >>>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each >>>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the >>>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE() >>>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an >>>>>>>>> + * empty test case. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * Example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read. >>>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80 >>>>>>>> and wrap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column >>>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when >>>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up >>>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that >>>>>>> they are only 80 chars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char >>>>>>> lines in this file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please >>>>>>> confirm either way. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations >>>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137: >>>>>> + */ \ >>>>>> >>>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked >>>>> >>>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation. >>>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line >>>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of >>>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro. >>>>> >>>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it >>>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc >>>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged >>>>> in the user documentation. >>>>> >>>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer >>>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the >>>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in >>>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty >>>>> substantial change to make. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch >>>> complaining and the other is general readability. >>> >>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out >>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it >>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is >>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do >>> it without just removing the comment entirely). >>> >> >> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a >> kernel-doc comment. > > I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we > figure out the column limit issue. > >> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in >> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am >> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments. >> I think it makes perfect sense. > > Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my > local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something > interesting is going on here. > > To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue > after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself? > I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this. Just this patch.

All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue. > Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon > so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this > figured out pretty quickly. > Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today.