lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lib: Convert test_printf.c to KUnit
From
Date
On 13/10/20 2:16 am, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 03:28:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:37:10PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>> On Mon 2020-08-17 09:06:32, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>>> On 17/08/2020 06.30, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
>>>>> Converts test lib/test_printf.c to KUnit.
>>>>> More information about KUnit can be found at
>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/index.html.
>>>>> KUnit provides a common framework for unit tests in the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> So I can continue to build a kernel with some appropriate CONFIG set to
>>>> y, boot it under virt-me, run dmesg and see if I broke printf? That's
>>>> what I do now, and I don't want to have to start using some enterprisy
>>>> framework.
>>>
>>> I had the same concern. I have tried it.
>
> Sorry you feel that way. Do you have any suggestions on how we can make
> it seem less enterprisy? Seems like there are people here who are not a
> fan of the output format, so of which we can fix here, some of which is
> part of KTAP[1].
>
>> Which raises an obvious question: did the people who convert this test this
>> themselves? Looks like a janitor work in the area without understanding the
>> area good enough.
>
> Looks to me like Arpitha ran it, but you are right, we don't have a lot
> of familiarity with this area; we were treating it as "janitor work" as
> you say.
>
> Our intention was just to take some existing tests and as non-invasively
> as possible, get them to report using a common format, and maybe even
> get some of the tests to follow a common pattern.
>
>> Probably I will NAK all those patches from now on, until it will be good commit
>> messages and cover of risen aspects, including reference to before and after
>> outcome for passed and failed test cases.
>
> Fair enough, hopefully we can address these issues in the next revision.
>
> One issue though, with the "before and after outcome" you are
> referencing; are you referring to the issue that Petr pointed out in how
> they are inconsistent:
>
>    + original code: vsnprintf(buf, 6, "%pi4|%pI4", ...) wrote '127.0', expected '127-0'
>    + kunit code: vsnprintf(buf, 20, "%pi4|%pI4", ...) wrote '127.000.000.001|127', expected '127-000.000.001|127'  
>
> (I think Rasmus addressed this.) Or are your referring to something
> else?
>
>> Brendan, I guess the ball now on your side to prove this is good activity.
>
> And I see that we are off to a great start! :-)
>
> In all seriousness, I am really sorry about this. I kind of bungled this
> up trying to go after too many of these conversions at once.
>
> Arpitha, can you get this follow up patch out?
>

Yes, I will work on this.

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CY4PR13MB1175B804E31E502221BC8163FD830@CY4PR13MB1175.namprd13.prod.outlook.com/
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-13 11:09    [W:0.176 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site