On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:48 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:36 AM 'Brendan Higgins' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:56:23PM -0700, David Gow wrote:
Add some basic sanity-check tests for the fat_checksum() function and the fat_time_unix2fat() and fat_time_fat2unix() functions. These unit tests verify these functions return correct output for a number of test inputs.
These tests were inspored by -- and serve a similar purpose to -- the
^^^^^^^^ I am guessing this is supposed to be "inspired".Oops -- yup. This is a typo. I can resend a version with this fixed if you think that makes sense, otherwise I'll just hold it over in case I need to send out a new version.
timestamp parsing KUnit tests in ext4[1].
Note that, unlike fat_time_unix2fat, fat_time_fat2unix wasn't previously exported, so this patch exports it as well. This is required for the case where we're building the fat and fat_test as modules.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp
Aside from the nit above, and the *potential* nit and question below. Everything here looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
It's been a while, but this hopefully is a final version of the FAT KUnit patchset. It has a number of changes to keep it up-to-date with current KUnit standards, notably the use of parameterised tests and the addition of a '.kunitconfig' file to allow for easy testing. It also fixes an endianness tagging issue picked up by the kernel test robot under sparse on pa-risc.
Cheers, -- David
[...]
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat_test.c b/fs/fat/fat_test.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..febd25f57d4b --- /dev/null +++ b/fs/fat/fat_test.c @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*
- KUnit tests for FAT filesystems.
- Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC.
Nit: I know you wrote this last year, but I have had other maintainers tell me the Copyright date should be set to when the final version of the patch is sent out.
I personally don't care, and I don't think you should resend this patch just for that, but figured I would mention.
Hmm... I've definitely heard this both ways, but I can easily update the year if I need to send a new version out.
- Author: David Gow davidgow@google.com
- */
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include "fat.h"
+static void fat_checksum_test(struct kunit *test) +{
/* With no extension. */KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("VMLINUX "), (u8)44);/* With 3-letter extension. */KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("README TXT"), (u8)115);/* With short (1-letter) extension. */KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fat_checksum("ABCDEFGHA "), (u8)98);How do you get the magic values? Or is this just supposed to be a regression test?
This is mainly meant to be a regression test, and the values did originally come from just running fat_checksum. I have, however, checked that Windows 98 produces the same values (on a FAT12 filesystem).
All the above sounds good to me. Like I said before, all my comments are pretty minor, I don't think you need to send a new revision for those.