[PATCH v3 0/1] Add KUnit tests for llist

[Artur Alves]

Hi all,

This is part of a hackathon organized by LKCAMP[1], focused on writing
tests using KUnit. We reached out a while ago asking for advice on what
would be a useful contribution[2] and ended up choosing data structures
that did not yet have tests.

This patch adds tests for the llist data structure, defined in
include/linux/llist.h, and is inspired by the KUnit tests for the doubly
linked list in lib/list-test.c[3].

It is important to note that this patch depends on the patch referenced
in [4], as it utilizes the newly created lib/tests/ subdirectory.

[1] https://lkcamp.dev/about/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zktnt7rjKryTh9-N@arch/
[3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/list-test.c
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240720181025...@kernel.org/

---
Changes in v3:
- Resolved checkpatch warnings:
- Renamed tests for macros starting with 'for_each'
- Removed link from commit message
- Replaced hardcoded constants with ENTRIES_SIZE
- Updated initialization of llist_node array
- Fixed typos
- Update Kconfig.debug message for llist_kunit

Changes in v2:
- Add MODULE_DESCRIPTION()
- Move the tests from lib/llist_kunit.c to lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
- Change the license from "GPL v2" to "GPL"

Artur Alves (1):
lib/llist_kunit.c: add KUnit tests for llist

lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++
lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 370 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c

--
2.46.0

[Artur Alves]

Add KUnit tests for the llist data structure. They test the vast
majority of methods and macros defined in include/linux/llist.h.

These are inspired by the existing tests for the 'list' doubly
linked in lib/list-test.c. Each test case (llist_test_x) tests
the behaviour of the llist function/macro 'x'.

Signed-off-by: Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com>
---

lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++
lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 370 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index b5696659f027..f6bd98f8ce2b 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -2813,6 +2813,17 @@ config USERCOPY_KUNIT_TEST
on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
user/kernel boundary testing is working.

+config LLIST_KUNIT_TEST
+ tristate "KUnit tests for lib/llist" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ depends on KUNIT
+ default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ help
+ This option builds the llist (lock-less list) KUnit test suite.
+ It tests the API and basic functionality of the macros and
+ functions defined in <linux/llist.h>.
+
+ If unsure, say N.
+
config TEST_UDELAY
tristate "udelay test driver"
help
diff --git a/lib/tests/Makefile b/lib/tests/Makefile
index c6a14cc8663e..8d7c40a73110 100644
--- a/lib/tests/Makefile
+++ b/lib/tests/Makefile
@@ -34,4 +34,5 @@ CFLAGS_stackinit_kunit.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, switch-unreachable)
obj-$(CONFIG_STACKINIT_KUNIT_TEST) += stackinit_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_STRING_KUNIT_TEST) += string_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_STRING_HELPERS_KUNIT_TEST) += string_helpers_kunit.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_LLIST_KUNIT_TEST) += llist_kunit.o

diff --git a/lib/tests/llist_kunit.c b/lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..817bb2948697
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
@@ -0,0 +1,358 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * KUnit test for the Kernel lock-less linked-list structure.
+ *
+ * Author: Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com>
+ */
+
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <linux/llist.h>
+
+#define ENTRIES_SIZE 3
+
+struct llist_test_struct {
+ int data;
+ struct llist_node node;
+};
+
+static void llist_test_init_llist(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ /* test if the llist is correctly initialized */
+ struct llist_head llist1 = LLIST_HEAD_INIT(llist1);
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist2);
+ struct llist_head llist3, *llist4, *llist5;
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist1));
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist2));
+
+ init_llist_head(&llist3);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist3));
+
+ llist4 = kzalloc(sizeof(*llist4), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
+ init_llist_head(llist4);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(llist4));
+ kfree(llist4);
+
+ llist5 = kmalloc(sizeof(*llist5), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
+ memset(llist5, 0xFF, sizeof(*llist5));
+ init_llist_head(llist5);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(llist5));
+ kfree(llist5);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_init_llist_node(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a;
+
+ init_llist_node(&a);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, a.next, &a);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_llist_entry(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_test_struct test_struct, *aux;
+ struct llist_node *llist = &test_struct.node;
+
+ aux = llist_entry(llist, struct llist_test_struct, node);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, &test_struct, aux);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_add(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ init_llist_node(&a);
+ init_llist_node(&b);
+
+ /* The first assertion must be true, given that llist is empty */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_add(&a, &llist));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, llist_add(&b, &llist));
+
+ /* Should be [List] -> b -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, llist.first, &b);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, b.next, &a);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_add_batch(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b, c;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist2);
+
+ init_llist_node(&a);
+ init_llist_node(&b);
+ init_llist_node(&c);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist2);
+ llist_add(&b, &llist2);
+ llist_add(&c, &llist2);
+
+ /* This assertion must be true, given that llist is empty */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_add_batch(&c, &a, &llist));
+
+ /* should be [List] -> c -> b -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, llist.first, &c);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, c.next, &b);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, b.next, &a);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_llist_next(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ init_llist_node(&a);
+ init_llist_node(&b);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+ llist_add(&b, &llist);
+
+ /* should be [List] -> b -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, llist_next(&b), &a);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, llist_next(&a));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_empty_llist(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_head llist = LLIST_HEAD_INIT(llist);
+ struct llist_node a;
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_llist_on_list(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ init_llist_node(&a);
+ init_llist_node(&b);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+
+ /* should be [List] -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_on_list(&a));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, llist_on_list(&b));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_del_first(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b, *c;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+ llist_add(&b, &llist);
+
+ /* before: [List] -> b -> a */
+ c = llist_del_first(&llist);
+
+ /* should be [List] -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, llist.first, &a);
+
+ /* del must return a pointer to llist_node b
+ * the returned pointer must be marked on list
+ */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, c, &b);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_on_list(c));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_del_first_init(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, *b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+
+ b = llist_del_first_init(&llist);
+
+ /* should be [List] */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+
+ /* the returned pointer must be marked out of the list */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, llist_on_list(b));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_del_first_this(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+ llist_add(&b, &llist);
+
+ llist_del_first_this(&llist, &a);
+
+ /* before: [List] -> b -> a */
+
+ // should remove only if is the first node in the llist
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, llist_del_first_this(&llist, &a));
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_del_first_this(&llist, &b));
+
+ /* should be [List] -> a */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, llist.first, &a);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_del_all(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node a, b;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ LLIST_HEAD(empty_llist);
+
+ llist_add(&a, &llist);
+ llist_add(&b, &llist);
+
+ /* deleting from a empty llist should return NULL */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, llist_del_all(&empty_llist));
+
+ llist_del_all(&llist);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_for_each(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node entries[ENTRIES_SIZE] = { 0 };
+ struct llist_node *pos, *deleted_nodes;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ int i = 0, j = 0;
+
+ for (int i = ENTRIES_SIZE - 1; i >= 0; i--)
+ llist_add(&entries[i], &llist);
+
+ /* before [List] -> entries[0] -> ... -> entries[ENTRIES_SIZE - 1] */
+ llist_for_each(pos, llist.first) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[i++]);
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);
+
+ /* traversing deleted nodes */
+ deleted_nodes = llist_del_all(&llist);
+
+ llist_for_each(pos, deleted_nodes) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[j++]);
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, j);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_safe_for_each(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node entries[ENTRIES_SIZE];
+ struct llist_node *pos, *n;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (int i = ENTRIES_SIZE - 1; i >= 0; i--)
+ llist_add(&entries[i], &llist);
+
+ llist_for_each_safe(pos, n, llist.first) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[i++]);
+ llist_del_first(&llist);
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_entry_for_each(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_test_struct entries[ENTRIES_SIZE], *pos;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (int i = ENTRIES_SIZE - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
+ entries[i].data = i;
+ llist_add(&entries[i].node, &llist);
+ }
+
+ i = 0;
+
+ llist_for_each_entry(pos, llist.first, node) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, pos->data, i);
+ i++;
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);
+}
+
+static void llist_test_entry_safe_for_each(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_test_struct entries[ENTRIES_SIZE], *pos, *n;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (int i = ENTRIES_SIZE - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
+ entries[i].data = i;
+ llist_add(&entries[i].node, &llist);
+ }
+
+ i = 0;
+
+ llist_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, llist.first, node) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, pos->data, i++);
+ llist_del_first(&llist);
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, llist_empty(&llist));
+}
+
+static void llist_test_reverse_order(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct llist_node entries[ENTRIES_SIZE], *pos, *reversed_llist;
+ LLIST_HEAD(llist);
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (int i = 0; i < ENTRIES_SIZE; i++)
+ llist_add(&entries[i], &llist);
+
+ /* before [List] -> entries[2] -> entries[1] -> entries[0] */
+ reversed_llist = llist_reverse_order(llist_del_first(&llist));
+
+ /* should be [List] -> entries[0] -> entries[1] -> entries[2] */
+ llist_for_each(pos, reversed_llist) {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[i++]);
+ }
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case llist_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_init_llist),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_init_llist_node),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_llist_entry),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_add),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_add_batch),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_llist_next),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_empty_llist),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_llist_on_list),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_del_first),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_del_first_init),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_del_first_this),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_del_all),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_for_each),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_safe_for_each),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_entry_for_each),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_entry_safe_for_each),
+ KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_reverse_order),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite llist_test_suite = {
+ .name = "llist",
+ .test_cases = llist_test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suite(llist_test_suite);
+
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("KUnit tests for the llist data structure.");
--
2.46.0

[Shuah Khan]

On 9/16/24 18:51, Artur Alves wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is part of a hackathon organized by LKCAMP[1], focused on writing
> tests using KUnit. We reached out a while ago asking for advice on what
> would be a useful contribution[2] and ended up choosing data structures
> that did not yet have tests.
>
> This patch adds tests for the llist data structure, defined in
> include/linux/llist.h, and is inspired by the KUnit tests for the doubly
> linked list in lib/list-test.c[3].
>
> It is important to note that this patch depends on the patch referenced
> in [4], as it utilizes the newly created lib/tests/ subdirectory.
>
> [1] https://lkcamp.dev/about/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zktnt7rjKryTh9-N@arch/
> [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/list-test.c
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240720181025...@kernel.org/
>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Resolved checkpatch warnings:
> - Renamed tests for macros starting with 'for_each'

Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review?

> - Removed link from commit message
> - Replaced hardcoded constants with ENTRIES_SIZE

Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review?

> - Updated initialization of llist_node array
> - Fixed typos
> - Update Kconfig.debug message for llist_kunit

Are these changes to existing code or warnings on your added code?

>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add MODULE_DESCRIPTION()
> - Move the tests from lib/llist_kunit.c to lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
> - Change the license from "GPL v2" to "GPL"
>
> Artur Alves (1):
> lib/llist_kunit.c: add KUnit tests for llist
>
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++
> lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
> lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 370 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
>

You are combining lot of changes in one single patch. Each change as a separate
patch will help reviewers.

Adding new test should be a separate patch.

- renaming as a separate patch

thanks,
-- Shuah

[Artur Alves Cavalcante de Barros]

Hi, thanks for the reply!

I'm not sure if I understood your concerns ...

In this patch, I'm adding the entire test suite for the lock-less list
data structure, which is the primary reason for its larger size. The
changes in V2 and V3 were made in response to code review suggestions
from previous iterations.

However, as a big patch I see how this cause an annoyance to review. I'm
open to any suggestions on how I can reduce its size or make the review
process more manageable.

Best regards,
- Artur

[David Gow]

On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 00:01, Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/24 18:51, Artur Alves wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is part of a hackathon organized by LKCAMP[1], focused on writing
> > tests using KUnit. We reached out a while ago asking for advice on what
> > would be a useful contribution[2] and ended up choosing data structures
> > that did not yet have tests.
> >
> > This patch adds tests for the llist data structure, defined in
> > include/linux/llist.h, and is inspired by the KUnit tests for the doubly
> > linked list in lib/list-test.c[3].
> >
> > It is important to note that this patch depends on the patch referenced
> > in [4], as it utilizes the newly created lib/tests/ subdirectory.
> >
> > [1] https://lkcamp.dev/about/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zktnt7rjKryTh9-N@arch/
> > [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/list-test.c
> > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240720181025...@kernel.org/
> >
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Resolved checkpatch warnings:
> > - Renamed tests for macros starting with 'for_each'
>
> Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review?
>

I think that, if this were renaming these in an already existing test
(like the confusingly similar list test), then yes. But since it's
only a change from v2, I think we're okay.

> > - Removed link from commit message
> > - Replaced hardcoded constants with ENTRIES_SIZE
>
> Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review?

Again, if we want to change this in other tests (list, hlist) we
should split it into a separate patch, but I think it's okay for llist
to go in with these already cleaned up.

>
> > - Updated initialization of llist_node array
> > - Fixed typos
> > - Update Kconfig.debug message for llist_kunit
>
> Are these changes to existing code or warnings on your added code?

I think these are all changes to the added code since v2. Artur, is that right?

> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Add MODULE_DESCRIPTION()
> > - Move the tests from lib/llist_kunit.c to lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
> > - Change the license from "GPL v2" to "GPL"
> >
> > Artur Alves (1):
> > lib/llist_kunit.c: add KUnit tests for llist
> >
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++
> > lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
> > lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 370 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
> >
>
> You are combining lot of changes in one single patch. Each change as a separate
> patch will help reviewers.
>
> Adding new test should be a separate patch.
>
> - renaming as a separate patch
>

I think given that these are just changes between patch versions, not
renaming/modifying already committed code, that this is okay to go in
as one patch?

The actual patch is only doing one thing: adding a test suite for the
llist structure. I don't see the point in committing a version of it
only to immediately rename things and clean bits up separately in this
case.


Cheers,
-- David

[Shuah Khan]

I do think it will help to separate the renaming and adding a new test.
It makes it easier to follow.

thanks,
-- Shuah

[Artur Alves Cavalcante de Barros]

Yes, the renaming refers to some test cases from the test suite that I'm
adding, with the purpose of resolving some checkpatch warnings, as
suggested by Rae Moar's review[1].

>>> - Removed link from commit message
>>> - Replaced hardcoded constants with ENTRIES_SIZE
>>
>> Shouldn't this a separate patch to make it easy to review?
>
> Again, if we want to change this in other tests (list, hlist) we
> should split it into a separate patch, but I think it's okay for llist
> to go in with these already cleaned up.
>
>>
>>> - Updated initialization of llist_node array
>>> - Fixed typos
>>> - Update Kconfig.debug message for llist_kunit
>>
>> Are these changes to existing code or warnings on your added code?
>
> I think these are all changes to the added code since v2. Artur, is that right?
>

This is the case! All changes are in the added code, so it doesn't
introduce any checkpatch warnings that were present in v2.

>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Add MODULE_DESCRIPTION()
>>> - Move the tests from lib/llist_kunit.c to lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
>>> - Change the license from "GPL v2" to "GPL"
>>>
>>> Artur Alves (1):
>>> lib/llist_kunit.c: add KUnit tests for llist
>>>
>>> lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++
>>> lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
>>> lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 358 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 370 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
>>>
>>
>> You are combining lot of changes in one single patch. Each change as a separate
>> patch will help reviewers.
>>
>> Adding new test should be a separate patch.
>>
>> - renaming as a separate patch
>>
>
> I think given that these are just changes between patch versions, not
> renaming/modifying already committed code, that this is okay to go in
> as one patch?
>
> The actual patch is only doing one thing: adding a test suite for the
> llist structure. I don't see the point in committing a version of it
> only to immediately rename things and clean bits up separately in this
> case.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David

Thanks for replying!

I'd like to reaffirm that the patch is, in fact, doing one thing: adding
tests for the llist data structure. All the changes in V2 and V3 refer
to the code that I'm adding. I'm not modifying any existing list tests,
only adding new ones.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903214027....@gmail.com/T/#mc29a53b120d2f8589f8bd882ab972d15c8a3d202

Best regards,
- Artur

[Artur Alves Cavalcante de Barros]

On 9/20/24 12:10 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/20/24 01:10, David Gow wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 00:01, Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/16/24 18:51, Artur Alves wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This is part of a hackathon organized by LKCAMP[1], focused on writing
>>>> tests using KUnit. We reached out a while ago asking for advice on what
>>>> would be a useful contribution[2] and ended up choosing data structures
>>>> that did not yet have tests.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds tests for the llist data structure, defined in
>>>> include/linux/llist.h, and is inspired by the KUnit tests for the
>>>> doubly
>>>> linked list in lib/list-test.c[3].
>>>>
>>>> It is important to note that this patch depends on the patch referenced
>>>> in [4], as it utilizes the newly created lib/tests/ subdirectory.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lkcamp.dev/about/
>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zktnt7rjKryTh9-N@arch/
>>>> [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/list-test.c

>>>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240720181025.work.002-
>>>> ke...@kernel.org/

Hi, Shuah!

The renaming is in the test suite that I'm adding, as suggested by Rae
Moar[1]. I'm not modifying any existing code; all my changes are in the
new code that I'm adding.

I'm sorry, but it isn't clear to me. Could you please provide an example
of what you're suggesting?

Would you prefer that I undo the renaming, submit the patch with the
checkpatch warnings, and then follow up with a new patch to rename the
test cases and resolve the warnings?

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903214027....@gmail.com/T/#mc29a53b120d2f8589f8bd882ab972d15c8a3d202

Thanks for your time,
- Artur

[Shuah Khan]

Sounds good to me. It was a bit confusing because the v2 and v3 change
new and code which wasn't clear to me.

thanks,
-- Shuah

[Rae Moar]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 8:51 PM Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add KUnit tests for the llist data structure. They test the vast
> majority of methods and macros defined in include/linux/llist.h.
>
> These are inspired by the existing tests for the 'list' doubly
> linked in lib/list-test.c. Each test case (llist_test_x) tests
> the behaviour of the llist function/macro 'x'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com>

Hello!

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We have been busy with
LPC. This looks good to me!

I just have one comment left: the patch to add the lib/tests directory
hasn't landed in the kselftest/kunit branch so this patch doesn't
apply cleanly. Since we are planning on taking this patch through that
branch, could you switch the files to be lib/Makefile and
lib/llist_kunit.c for now. And we can move them in the great migration
later.

But otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <rm...@google.com>

Thanks!
Rae

> --
> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20240917005116.304090-2-arturacb%40gmail.com.

[David Gow]

On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 08:51, Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add KUnit tests for the llist data structure. They test the vast
> majority of methods and macros defined in include/linux/llist.h.
>
> These are inspired by the existing tests for the 'list' doubly
> linked in lib/list-test.c. Each test case (llist_test_x) tests
> the behaviour of the llist function/macro 'x'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Artur Alves <artu...@gmail.com>
> ---

Always nice to see more list tests!

Acked-by: David Gow <davi...@google.com>

Cheers,
-- David