There were a couple of errors introuced when "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in c9d80ffc5a.
An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using itself: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210421020427.2384721-1-dlatypov@go... [2]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org/thread/6IKQX5JX... [3]: https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org/thread/EKY7ZH5Y...
Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names") Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com ---
This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names" patch here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/co...
Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works better.
Cheers, -- David
lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +- lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 lib/kunit/executor_test.c
diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index 672f91486d23..acd1de436f59 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static char *kunit_shutdown; core_param(kunit_shutdown, kunit_shutdown, charp, 0644);
static struct kunit_suite * const * -+kunit_filter_subsuite(struct kunit_suite * const * const subsuite, +kunit_filter_subsuite(struct kunit_suite * const * const subsuite, const char *filter_glob) { int i, n = 0; diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..cdbe54b16501 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * KUnit test for the KUnit executor. + * + * Copyright (C) 2021, Google LLC. + * Author: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com + */ + +#include <kunit/test.h> + +static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); +static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, + const char *suite_name); + +static void filter_subsuite_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL}; + struct kunit_suite * const *filtered; + + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1"); + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2"); + + /* Want: suite1, suite2, NULL -> suite2, NULL */ + filtered = kunit_filter_subsuite(subsuite, "suite2*"); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered); + kfree_at_end(test, filtered); + + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered[0]); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)filtered[0]->name, "suite2"); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, filtered[1]); +} + +static void filter_subsuite_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL}; + struct kunit_suite * const *filtered; + + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1"); + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2"); + + filtered = kunit_filter_subsuite(subsuite, "not_found"); + kfree_at_end(test, filtered); /* just in case */ + + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, filtered, + "should be NULL to indicate no match"); +} + +static void kfree_subsuites_at_end(struct kunit *test, struct suite_set *suite_set) +{ + struct kunit_suite * const * const *suites; + + kfree_at_end(test, suite_set->start); + for (suites = suite_set->start; suites < suite_set->end; suites++) + kfree_at_end(test, *suites); +} + +static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + /* Suites per-file are stored as a NULL terminated array */ + struct kunit_suite *subsuites[2][2] = { + {NULL, NULL}, + {NULL, NULL}, + }; + /* Match the memory layout of suite_set */ + struct kunit_suite * const * const suites[2] = { + subsuites[0], subsuites[1], + }; + + const struct suite_set suite_set = { + .start = suites, + .end = suites + 2, + }; + struct suite_set filtered = {.start = NULL, .end = NULL}; + + /* Emulate two files, each having one suite */ + subsuites[0][0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite0"); + subsuites[1][0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1"); + + /* Filter out suite1 */ + filtered = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite0"); + kfree_subsuites_at_end(test, &filtered); /* let us use ASSERTs without leaking */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, filtered.end - filtered.start, (ptrdiff_t)1); + + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered.start); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, filtered.start[0]); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)filtered.start[0][0]->name, "suite0"); +} + +static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(filter_subsuite_test), + KUNIT_CASE(filter_subsuite_to_empty_test), + KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test), + {} +}; + +static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { + .name = "kunit_executor_test", + .test_cases = executor_test_cases, +}; + +kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite); + +/* Test helpers */ + +static void kfree_res_free(struct kunit_resource *res) +{ + kfree(res->data); +} + +/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free). + * Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data. + */ +static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) +{ + /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */ + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free)) + return; + kunit_alloc_and_get_resource(test, NULL, kfree_res_free, GFP_KERNEL, + (void *)to_free); +} + +static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, + const char *suite_name) +{ + struct kunit_suite *suite; + + /* We normally never expect to allocate suites, hence the non-const cast. */ + suite = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite), GFP_KERNEL); + strncpy((char *)suite->name, suite_name, sizeof(suite->name) - 1); + + return suite; +}
On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
There were a couple of errors introuced when "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in c9d80ffc5a.
An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using itself: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names") Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names" patch here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/co...
Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works better.
Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:11 AM Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
There were a couple of errors introuced when "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in c9d80ffc5a.
An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using itself: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names") Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names" patch here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/co...
Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works better.
Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
Hmm, it looks like executor_test.c might not have made it into kunit-fixes. I believe this is the applied version of this patch:
$ git show d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a --stat commit d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a Author: David Gow davidgow@google.com Date: Fri Jun 25 04:16:03 2021 -0700
kunit: Fix merge issue in suite filtering test ... lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
The result looks like this: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run ... $ make ARCH=um --jobs=8 O=.kunit ERROR:root:../lib/kunit/executor.c:140:10: fatal error: executor_test.c: No such file or directory 140 | #include "executor_test.c" | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just `git am` or something just really doesn't like executor_test.c :)
thanks,
-- Shuah
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/99c2564c-4175-7e3e-84c3-3bcb6d4f....
On 6/25/21 11:08 AM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:11 AM Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:16 AM, David Gow wrote:
There were a couple of errors introuced when "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names"[1] was merged in c9d80ffc5a.
An erroneous '+' was introduced in executor.c, and the executor_test.c file went missing. This causes the kernel to fail to compile if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, as reported in [2,3].
As with the original, I've tested by running just the new tests using itself: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
Fixes: c9d80ffc5a ("kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names") Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
This is another fix for the kunit-fixes branch, where there seems to have been an issue merging the "kunit: add unit test for filtering suites by names" patch here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/co...
Again, feel free to squash this into the original patch if that works better.
Thank you. My bad. Applied to kunit-fixes now.
Hmm, it looks like executor_test.c might not have made it into kunit-fixes. I believe this is the applied version of this patch:
$ git show d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a --stat commit d833ce7480864d4d7eb2dbb04320858be3578b2a Author: David Gow davidgow@google.com Date: Fri Jun 25 04:16:03 2021 -0700
kunit: Fix merge issue in suite filtering test
... lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
The result looks like this: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run ... $ make ARCH=um --jobs=8 O=.kunit ERROR:root:../lib/kunit/executor.c:140:10: fatal error: executor_test.c: No such file or directory 140 | #include "executor_test.c" | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just `git am` or something just really doesn't like executor_test.c :)
My mistake it looks like in merging the patch. I had to fix merge conflicts and made a mistake. I will fix it now.
Odd that my local compile didn't catch the problem. I used the tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py build
thanks, -- Shuah
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org