Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:27)
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@google.com Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe logang@deltatee.com Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd sboyd@kernel.org
Minor nits below.
diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..571e4c65deb5c --- /dev/null +++ b/kunit/test.c @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*
- Base unit test (KUnit) API.
- Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
- Author: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
- */
+#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>
+static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test) +{
WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);+}
[...]
+void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) +{
test->name = name;test->success = true;+}
+/*
- Performs all logic to run a test case.
- */
+static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite,
struct kunit_case *test_case)+{
struct kunit test;int ret = 0;kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name);if (suite->init) {ret = suite->init(&test);
Can you push the ret definition into this if scope? That way we can avoid default initialize to 0 for it.
if (ret) {kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret);kunit_set_failure(&test);
Do we need to 'test_case->success = test.success' here too? Or is the test failure extracted somewhere else?
return;}}test_case->run_case(&test);if (suite->exit)suite->exit(&test);test_case->success = test.success;