Add documentation for KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework. - Add intro and usage guide for KUnit - Add API reference
Signed-off-by: Felix Guo felixguoxiuping@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com --- Documentation/index.rst | 1 + Documentation/kunit/api/index.rst | 16 ++ Documentation/kunit/api/test.rst | 15 + Documentation/kunit/faq.rst | 46 +++ Documentation/kunit/index.rst | 80 ++++++ Documentation/kunit/start.rst | 180 ++++++++++++ Documentation/kunit/usage.rst | 447 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 785 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/api/index.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/api/test.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/faq.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/index.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/start.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/kunit/usage.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst index 5db7e87c7cb1d..275ef4db79f61 100644 --- a/Documentation/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/index.rst @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ merged much easier. kernel-hacking/index trace/index maintainer/index + kunit/index
Kernel API documentation ------------------------ diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/api/index.rst b/Documentation/kunit/api/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..c31c530088153 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/api/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +============= +API Reference +============= +.. toctree:: + + test + +This section documents the KUnit kernel testing API. It is divided into 3 +sections: + +================================= ============================================== +:doc:`test` documents all of the standard testing API + excluding mocking or mocking related features. +================================= ============================================== diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/api/test.rst b/Documentation/kunit/api/test.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..7f22db32536eb --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/api/test.rst @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +======== +Test API +======== + +This file documents all of the standard testing API excluding mocking or mocking +related features. + +.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/test.h + :internal: + +.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/test-stream.h + :internal: + diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/faq.rst b/Documentation/kunit/faq.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..cb8e4fb2257a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/faq.rst @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +========================================= +Frequently Asked Questions +========================================= + +How is this different from Autotest, kselftest, etc? +==================================================== +KUnit is a unit testing framework. Autotest, kselftest (and some others) are +not. + +A `unit test https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html`_ is supposed to +test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the name. A unit test should be +the finest granularity of testing and as such should allow all possible code +paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only possible if the code +under test is very small and does not have any external dependencies outside of +the test's control like hardware. + +There are no testing frameworks currently available for the kernel that do not +require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM and all require +tests to be written in userspace and run on the kernel under test; this is true +for Autotest, kselftest, and some others, disqualifying any of them from being +considered unit testing frameworks. + +What is the difference between a unit test and these other kinds of tests? +========================================================================== +Most existing tests for the Linux kernel would be categorized as an integration +test, or an end-to-end test. + +- A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the + name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such + should allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this + is only possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any + external dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware. +- An integration test tests the interaction between a minimal set of components, + usually just two or three. For example, someone might write an integration + test to test the interaction between a driver and a piece of hardware, or to + test the interaction between the userspace libraries the kernel provides and + the kernel itself; however, one of these tests would probably not test the + entire kernel along with hardware interactions and interactions with the + userspace. +- An end-to-end test usually tests the entire system from the perspective of the + code under test. For example, someone might write an end-to-end test for the + kernel by installing a production configuration of the kernel on production + hardware with a production userspace and then trying to exercise some behavior + that depends on interactions between the hardware, the kernel, and userspace. diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/index.rst b/Documentation/kunit/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..c6710211b647f --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +========================================= +KUnit - Unit Testing for the Linux Kernel +========================================= + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 2 + + start + usage + api/index + faq + +What is KUnit? +============== + +KUnit is a lightweight unit testing and mocking framework for the Linux kernel. +These tests are able to be run locally on a developer's workstation without a VM +or special hardware. + +KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and +Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining unit test +cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing common +infrastructure for running tests, and much more. + +Get started now: :doc:`start` + +Why KUnit? +========== + +A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the +name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such should +allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only +possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any external +dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware. + +Outside of KUnit, there are no testing frameworks currently +available for the kernel that do not require installing the kernel on a test +machine or in a VM and all require tests to be written in userspace running on +the kernel; this is true for Autotest, and kselftest, disqualifying +any of them from being considered unit testing frameworks. + +KUnit addresses the problem of being able to run tests without needing a virtual +machine or actual hardware with User Mode Linux. User Mode Linux is a Linux +architecture, like ARM or x86; however, unlike other architectures it compiles +to a standalone program that can be run like any other program directly inside +of a host operating system; to be clear, it does not require any virtualization +support; it is just a regular program. + +KUnit is fast. Excluding build time, from invocation to completion KUnit can run +several dozen tests in only 10 to 20 seconds; this might not sound like a big +deal to some people, but having such fast and easy to run tests fundamentally +changes the way you go about testing and even writing code in the first place. +Linus himself said in his `git talk at Google +https://gist.github.com/lorn/1272686/revisions#diff-53c65572127855f1b003db4064a94573R874`_: + + "... a lot of people seem to think that performance is about doing the + same thing, just doing it faster, and that is not true. That is not what + performance is all about. If you can do something really fast, really + well, people will start using it differently." + +In this context Linus was talking about branching and merging, +but this point also applies to testing. If your tests are slow, unreliable, are +difficult to write, and require a special setup or special hardware to run, +then you wait a lot longer to write tests, and you wait a lot longer to run +tests; this means that tests are likely to break, unlikely to test a lot of +things, and are unlikely to be rerun once they pass. If your tests are really +fast, you run them all the time, every time you make a change, and every time +someone sends you some code. Why trust that someone ran all their tests +correctly on every change when you can just run them yourself in less time than +it takes to read his / her test log? + +How do I use it? +=================== + +* :doc:`start` - for new users of KUnit +* :doc:`usage` - for a more detailed explanation of KUnit features +* :doc:`api/index` - for the list of KUnit APIs used for testing + diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/kunit/start.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..bdae8e7f84b04 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/start.rst @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +=============== +Getting Started +=============== + +Installing dependencies +======================= +KUnit has the same dependencies as the Linux kernel. As long as you can build +the kernel, you can run KUnit. + +KUnit Wrapper +============= +Included with KUnit is a simple Python wrapper that helps format the output to +easily use and read KUnit output. It handles building and running the kernel, as +well as formatting the output. + +The wrapper can be run with: + +.. code-block:: bash + + ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py + +Creating a kunitconfig +====================== +The Python script is a thin wrapper around Kbuild as such, it needs to be +configured with a ``kunitconfig`` file. This file essentially contains the +regular Kernel config, with the specific test targets as well. + +.. code-block:: bash + + git clone -b master https://kunit.googlesource.com/kunitconfig $PATH_TO_KUNITCONFIG_REPO + cd $PATH_TO_LINUX_REPO + ln -s $PATH_TO_KUNIT_CONFIG_REPO/kunitconfig kunitconfig + +You may want to add kunitconfig to your local gitignore. + +Verifying KUnit Works +------------------------- + +To make sure that everything is set up correctly, simply invoke the Python +wrapper from your kernel repo: + +.. code-block:: bash + + ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py + +.. note:: + You may want to run ``make mrproper`` first. + +If everything worked correctly, you should see the following: + +.. code-block:: bash + + Generating .config ... + Building KUnit Kernel ... + Starting KUnit Kernel ... + +followed by a list of tests that are run. All of them should be passing. + +.. note:: + Because it is building a lot of sources for the first time, the ``Building + kunit kernel`` step may take a while. + +Writing your first test +========================== + +In your kernel repo let's add some code that we can test. Create a file +``drivers/misc/example.h`` with the contents: + +.. code-block:: c + + int misc_example_add(int left, int right); + +create a file ``drivers/misc/example.c``: + +.. code-block:: c + + #include <linux/errno.h> + + #include "example.h" + + int misc_example_add(int left, int right) + { + return left + right; + } + +Now add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``: + +.. code-block:: kconfig + + config MISC_EXAMPLE + bool "My example" + +and the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``: + +.. code-block:: make + + obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE) += example.o + +Now we are ready to write the test. The test will be in +``drivers/misc/example-test.c``: + +.. code-block:: c + + #include <kunit/test.h> + #include "example.h" + + /* Define the test cases. */ + + static void misc_example_add_test_basic(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, misc_example_add(1, 0)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, misc_example_add(1, 1)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, misc_example_add(-1, 1)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, misc_example_add(0, INT_MAX)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, misc_example_add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN)); + } + + static void misc_example_test_failure(struct test *test) + { + TEST_FAIL(test, "This test never passes."); + } + + static struct test_case misc_example_test_cases[] = { + TEST_CASE(misc_example_add_test_basic), + TEST_CASE(misc_example_test_failure), + {}, + }; + + static struct test_module misc_example_test_module = { + .name = "misc-example", + .test_cases = misc_example_test_cases, + }; + module_test(misc_example_test_module); + +Now add the following to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``: + +.. code-block:: kconfig + + config MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST + bool "Test for my example" + depends on MISC_EXAMPLE && KUNIT + +and the following to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``: + +.. code-block:: make + + obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST) += example-test.o + +Now add it to your ``kunitconfig``: + +.. code-block:: none + + CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE=y + CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST=y + +Now you can run the test: + +.. code-block:: bash + + ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py + +You should see the following failure: + +.. code-block:: none + + ... + [16:08:57] [PASSED] misc-example:misc_example_add_test_basic + [16:08:57] [FAILED] misc-example:misc_example_test_failure + [16:08:57] EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/misc/example-test.c:17 + [16:08:57] This test never passes. + ... + +Congrats! You just wrote your first KUnit test! + +Next Steps +============= +* Check out the :doc:`usage` page for a more + in-depth explanation of KUnit. diff --git a/Documentation/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/kunit/usage.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..491466d4d4ec3 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kunit/usage.rst @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +============= +Using KUnit +============= + +The purpose of this document is to describe what KUnit is, how it works, how it +is intended to be used, and all the concepts and terminology that are needed to +understand it. This guide assumes a working knowledge of the Linux kernel and +some basic knowledge of testing. + +For a high level introduction to KUnit, including setting up KUnit for your +project, see :doc:`start`. + +Organization of this document +================================= + +This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Isolating +Behavior. The first covers what a unit test is and how to use KUnit to write +them. The second covers how to use KUnit to isolate code and make it possible +to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable. + +Testing +========== + +What is KUnit? +------------------ + +"K" is short for "kernel" so "KUnit" is the "(Linux) Kernel Unit Testing +Framework." KUnit is intended first and foremost for writing unit tests; it is +general enough that it can be used to write integration tests; however, this is +a secondary goal. KUnit has no ambition of being the only testing framework for +the kernel; for example, it does not intend to be an end-to-end testing +framework. + +What is Unit Testing? +------------------------- + +A `unit test https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html`_ is a test that +tests code at the smallest possible scope, a *unit* of code. In the C +programming language that's a function. + +Unit tests should be written for all the publicly exposed functions in a +compilation unit; so that is all the functions that are exported in either a +*class* (defined below) or all functions which are **not** static. + +Writing Tests +------------- + +Test Cases +~~~~~~~~~~ + +The fundamental unit in KUnit is the test case. A test case is a function with +the signature ``void (*)(struct test *test)``. It calls a function to be tested +and then sets *expectations* for what should happen. For example: + +.. code-block:: c + + void example_test_success(struct test *test) + { + } + + void example_test_failure(struct test *test) + { + TEST_FAIL(test, "This test never passes."); + } + +In the above example ``example_test_success`` always passes because it does +nothing; no expectations are set, so all expectations pass. On the other hand +``example_test_failure`` always fails because it calls ``TEST_FAIL``, which is a +special expectation that logs a message and causes the test case to fail. + +Expectations +~~~~~~~~~~~~ +An *expectation* is a way to specify that you expect a piece of code to do +something in a test. An expectation is called like a function. A test is made +by setting expectations about the behavior of a piece of code under test; when +one or more of the expectations fail, the test case fails and information about +the failure is logged. For example: + +.. code-block:: c + + void add_test_basic(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1)); + } + +In the above example ``add_test_basic`` makes a number of assertions about the +behavior of a function called ``add``; the first parameter is always of type +``struct test *``, which contains information about the current test context; +the second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be; the +last value is what the value actually is. If ``add`` passes all of these +expectations, the test case, ``add_test_basic`` will pass; if any one of these +expectations fail, the test case will fail. + +It is important to understand that a test case *fails* when any expectation is +violated; however, the test will continue running, potentially trying other +expectations until the test case ends or is otherwise terminated. This is as +opposed to *assertions* which are discussed later. + +To learn about more expectations supported by KUnit, see :doc:`api/test`. + +.. note:: + A single test case should be pretty short, pretty easy to understand, + focused on a single behavior. + +For example, if we wanted to properly test the add function above, we would +create additional tests cases which would each test a different property that an +add function should have like this: + +.. code-block:: c + + void add_test_basic(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1)); + } + + void add_test_negative(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1)); + } + + void add_test_max(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX)); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN)); + } + + void add_test_overflow(struct test *test) + { + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MIN, add(INT_MAX, 1)); + } + +Notice how it is immediately obvious what all the properties that we are testing +for are. + +Assertions +~~~~~~~~~~ + +KUnit also has the concept of an *assertion*. An assertion is just like an +expectation except the assertion immediately terminates the test case if it is +not satisfied. + +For example: + +.. code-block:: c + + static void mock_test_do_expect_default_return(struct test *test) + { + struct mock_test_context *ctx = test->priv; + struct mock *mock = ctx->mock; + int param0 = 5, param1 = -5; + const char *two_param_types[] = {"int", "int"}; + const void *two_params[] = {¶m0, ¶m1}; + const void *ret; + + ret = mock->do_expect(mock, + "test_printk", test_printk, + two_param_types, two_params, + ARRAY_SIZE(two_params)); + TEST_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -4, *((int *) ret)); + } + +In this example, the method under test should return a pointer to a value, so +if the pointer returned by the method is null or an errno, we don't want to +bother continuing the test since the following expectation could crash the test +case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us to bail out of the test case if +the appropriate conditions have not been satisfied to complete the test. + +Modules / Test Suites +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Now obviously one unit test isn't very helpful; the power comes from having +many test cases covering all of your behaviors. Consequently it is common to +have many *similar* tests; in order to reduce duplication in these closely +related tests most unit testing frameworks provide the concept of a *test +suite*, in KUnit we call it a *test module*; all it is is just a collection of +test cases for a unit of code with a set up function that gets invoked before +every test cases and then a tear down function that gets invoked after every +test case completes. + +Example: + +.. code-block:: c + + static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = { + TEST_CASE(example_test_foo), + TEST_CASE(example_test_bar), + TEST_CASE(example_test_baz), + {}, + }; + + static struct test_module example_test_module[] = { + .name = "example", + .init = example_test_init, + .exit = example_test_exit, + .test_cases = example_test_cases, + }; + module_test(example_test_module); + +In the above example the test suite, ``example_test_module``, would run the test +cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``, each +would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and would have +``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it. +``module_test(example_test_module)`` registers the test suite with the KUnit +test framework. + +.. note:: + A test case will only be run if it is associated with a test suite. + +For a more information on these types of things see the :doc:`api/test`. + +Isolating Behavior +================== + +The most important aspect of unit testing that other forms of testing do not +provide is the ability to limit the amount of code under test to a single unit. +In practice, this is only possible by being able to control what code gets run +when the unit under test calls a function and this is usually accomplished +through some sort of indirection where a function is exposed as part of an API +such that the definition of that function can be changed without affecting the +rest of the code base. In the kernel this primarily comes from two constructs, +classes, structs that contain function pointers that are provided by the +implementer, and architecture specific functions which have definitions selected +at compile time. + +Classes +------- + +Classes are not a construct that is built into the C programming language; +however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, pretty much every project +that does not use a standardized object oriented library (like GNOME's GObject) +has their own slightly different way of doing object oriented programming; the +Linux kernel is no exception. + +The central concept in kernel object oriented programming is the class. In the +kernel, a *class* is a struct that contains function pointers. This creates a +contract between *implementers* and *users* since it forces them to use the +same function signature without having to call the function directly. In order +for it to truly be a class, the function pointers must specify that a pointer +to the class, known as a *class handle*, be one of the parameters; this makes +it possible for the member functions (also known as *methods*) to have access +to member variables (more commonly known as *fields*) allowing the same +implementation to have multiple *instances*. + +Typically a class can be *overridden* by *child classes* by embedding the +*parent class* in the child class. Then when a method provided by the child +class is called, the child implementation knows that the pointer passed to it is +of a parent contained within the child; because of this, the child can compute +the pointer to itself because the pointer to the parent is always a fixed offset +from the pointer to the child; this offset is the offset of the parent contained +in the child struct. For example: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct shape { + int (*area)(struct shape *this); + }; + + struct rectangle { + struct shape parent; + int length; + int width; + }; + + int rectangle_area(struct shape *this) + { + struct rectangle *self = container_of(this, struct shape, parent); + + return self->length * self->width; + }; + + void rectangle_new(struct rectangle *self, int length, int width) + { + self->parent.area = rectangle_area; + self->length = length; + self->width = width; + } + +In this example (as in most kernel code) the operation of computing the pointer +to the child from the pointer to the parent is done by ``container_of``. + +Faking Classes +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +In order to unit test a piece of code that calls a method in a class, the +behavior of the method must be controllable, otherwise the test ceases to be a +unit test and becomes an integration test. + +A fake just provides an implementation of a piece of code that is different than +what runs in a production instance, but behaves identically from the standpoint +of the callers; this is usually done to replace a dependency that is hard to +deal with, or is slow. + +A good example for this might be implementing a fake EEPROM that just stores the +"contents" in an internal buffer. For example, let's assume we have a class that +represents an EEPROM: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct eeprom { + ssize_t (*read)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count); + ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count); + }; + +And we want to test some code that buffers writes to the EEPROM: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct eeprom_buffer { + ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom_buffer *this, const char *buffer, size_t count); + int flush(struct eeprom_buffer *this); + size_t flush_count; /* Flushes when buffer exceeds flush_count. */ + }; + + struct eeprom_buffer *new_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom); + void destroy_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom); + +We can easily test this code by *faking out* the underlying EEPROM: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct fake_eeprom { + struct eeprom parent; + char contents[FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE]; + }; + + ssize_t fake_eeprom_read(struct eeprom *parent, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count) + { + struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent); + + count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset); + memcpy(buffer, this->contents + offset, count); + + return count; + } + + ssize_t fake_eeprom_write(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count) + { + struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent); + + count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset); + memcpy(this->contents + offset, buffer, count); + + return count; + } + + void fake_eeprom_init(struct fake_eeprom *this) + { + this->parent.read = fake_eeprom_read; + this->parent.write = fake_eeprom_write; + memset(this->contents, 0, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE); + } + +We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct eeprom_buffer_test { + struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom; + struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer; + }; + + static void eeprom_buffer_test_does_not_write_until_flush(struct test *test) + { + struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv; + struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer; + struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom; + char buffer[] = {0xff}; + + eeprom_buffer->flush_count = SIZE_MAX; + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0); + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0); + + eeprom_buffer->flush(eeprom_buffer); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff); + } + + static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_after_flush_count_met(struct test *test) + { + struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv; + struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer; + struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom; + char buffer[] = {0xff}; + + eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2; + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0); + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff); + } + + static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_increments_of_flush_count(struct test *test) + { + struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv; + struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer; + struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom; + char buffer[] = {0xff, 0xff}; + + eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2; + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0); + + eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 2); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff); + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff); + /* Should have only flushed the first two bytes. */ + TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[2], 0); + } + + static int eeprom_buffer_test_init(struct test *test) + { + struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx; + + ctx = test_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); + ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx); + + ctx->fake_eeprom = test_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx->fake_eeprom), GFP_KERNEL); + ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->fake_eeprom); + + ctx->eeprom_buffer = new_eeprom_buffer(&ctx->fake_eeprom->parent); + ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->eeprom_buffer); + + test->priv = ctx; + + return 0; + } + + static void eeprom_buffer_test_exit(struct test *test) + { + struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv; + + destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer); + } +