On 9/5/24 5:51 PM, Rae Moar wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:40 PM Artur Alves arturacb@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 [1]. Each test case (llist_test_x) tests the behaviour of the llist function/macro 'x'.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/lib/...
Signed-off-by: Artur Alves arturacb@gmail.com
Hello!
Thanks for creating this new test! It looks really good and is passing all the tests.
My main comment is that this patch is causing some checkpatch warnings:
WARNING: Prefer a maximum 75 chars per line (possible unwrapped commit description?) #13: [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/lib/...
It's probably fine to ignore this warning as it is a link. But I might remove the link because it is not absolutely necessary in this case.
WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating? #58: new file mode 100644
ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line #306: FILE: lib/llist_kunit.c:249: +static void llist_test_for_each_safe(struct kunit *test) +{
ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line #325: FILE: lib/llist_kunit.c:268: +static void llist_test_for_each_entry(struct kunit *test) +{
ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line #346: FILE: lib/llist_kunit.c:289: +static void llist_test_for_each_entry_safe(struct kunit *test) +{
These checkpatch errors are mistaken since the open brace should be where it is. I believe this is getting picked up because of the "for_each" in the test name. This was fixed for me by rewriting the test names: from "llist_test_for_each_safe" -> to "llist_test_safe_for_each", and so on for the other tests with errors. Sorry it's a pain to change this but I think it is a better fix than changing the checkpatch script.
lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++ lib/tests/Makefile | 1 + lib/tests/llist_kunit.c | 361 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 373 insertions(+) create mode 100644 lib/tests/llist_kunit.c
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index a30c03a66172..b2725daccc52 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_TESTSdepends on KUNITdefault KUNIT_ALL_TESTShelpThis option builds the "llist_kunit" test module thathelps to verify the correctness of the functions andmacros defined in (<linux/llist.h>).Also, I think I would prefer if this description was a bit tweaked. Saying it builds the "module" is confusing since this test might be run built-in instead. So maybe something more similar to :
This builds the llist (lock-less list) KUnit test suite. It tests the API and basic functionality of the macros and functions defined in <linux/llish.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..f273c0d175c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/tests/llist_kunit.c @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*
- KUnit test for the Kernel lock-less linked-list structure.
- Author: Artur Alves arturacb@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 llistKUNIT_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;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);i = 0;This is super nitpicky but I think I would prefer if you set two variables to zero at the beginning rather than reusing "i". So: int i = 0, j = 0;
/* traversing deleted nodes */deleted_nodes = llist_del_all(&llist);llist_for_each(pos, deleted_nodes) {KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[i++]);}KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ENTRIES_SIZE, i);+}
+static void llist_test_for_each_safe(struct kunit *test) +{
struct llist_node entries[ENTRIES_SIZE] = { 0 };I'm not sure if it is necessary to initialize this to be zeros.
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_for_each_entry(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_for_each_entry_safe(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[3], *pos, *reversed_llist;Rather than using the "3" here I would prefer using the ENTRIES_SIZE.
LLIST_HEAD(llist);int i = 0;llist_add(&entries[0], &llist);llist_add(&entries[1], &llist);llist_add(&entries[2], &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] -> entrires[2] */Small typo in this comment: "entries"
llist_for_each(pos, reversed_llist) {KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, pos, &entries[i++]);}KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3, i);Same here with the use of the "3".
+}
+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_for_each_safe),KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_for_each_entry),KUNIT_CASE(llist_test_for_each_entry_safe),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
-- 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/20240903214027.77533-2-arturacb%....
Hi!
Thanks for the reply! I'm going to address these issues ASAP :)