LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] list: test: Add a test for list_entry_is_head()
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:44:56 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxpYuXPavOVOvp07UUhBcrPYH7P5EZKrVOP5WN2s8t3mSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220208040122.695258-3-davidgow@google.com>

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 8:02 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> The list_entry_is_head() macro was added[1] after the list KUnit tests,
> so wasn't tested. Add a new KUnit test to complete the set.
>
> [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e130816164e244b692921de49771eeb28205152d
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Acked-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Similar to the previous patch, we can maybe consider using the _MSG
variants here

> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220205061539.273330-3-davidgow@google.com/
> - Rework the test entirely to better match the improved list_is_head()
>   test.
>
> ---
>  lib/list-test.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c
> index 1960615d1a9f..80dd14c4ca1f 100644
> --- a/lib/list-test.c
> +++ b/lib/list-test.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,22 @@ static void list_test_list_entry(struct kunit *test)
>                                 struct list_test_struct, list));
>  }
>
> +static void list_test_list_entry_is_head(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct list_test_struct test_struct1, test_struct2, test_struct3;
> +
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test_struct1.list);
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test_struct3.list);
> +
> +       list_add_tail(&test_struct2.list, &test_struct1.list);
> +
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct1), &test_struct1.list, list));
> +       /* Non-head element of same list */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct2), &test_struct1.list, list));
> +       /* Head element of different list */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, list_entry_is_head((&test_struct3), &test_struct1.list, list));

Unlike the list_is_head()
* this macro is marginally more complicated (barely).
* these lines already go over 80 chars.
* macros in EXPECT's get printed out in expanded form (less legible on
their own than a func call is)

So perhaps

KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ..., "Head element of different list")

?

> +}
> +
>  static void list_test_list_first_entry(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>         struct list_test_struct test_struct1, test_struct2;
> @@ -761,6 +777,7 @@ static struct kunit_case list_test_cases[] = {
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_splice_init),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_splice_tail_init),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_entry),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_entry_is_head),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_first_entry),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_last_entry),
>         KUNIT_CASE(list_test_list_first_entry_or_null),
> --
> 2.35.0.263.gb82422642f-goog
>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-08 22:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-08  4:01 [PATCH v2 1/3] list: test: Add test for list_del_init_careful() David Gow
2022-02-08  4:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] list: test: Add a test for list_is_head() David Gow
2022-02-08 20:40   ` Daniel Latypov
2022-02-08 21:46   ` Brendan Higgins
2022-02-08  4:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] list: test: Add a test for list_entry_is_head() David Gow
2022-02-08 20:44   ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2022-02-08 21:52   ` Brendan Higgins
2022-02-08 20:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] list: test: Add test for list_del_init_careful() Daniel Latypov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGS_qxpYuXPavOVOvp07UUhBcrPYH7P5EZKrVOP5WN2s8t3mSA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=dlatypov@google.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] list: test: Add a test for list_entry_is_head()' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).