Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] kunit: Report the count of test suites in a module

From: Rae Moar
Date: Mon Aug 07 2023 - 19:33:00 EST

Next message: Dan Williams: "Re: [PATCH 0/4] keys: Introduce a keys frontend for attestation reports"
Previous message: Dave Chinner: "Re: [PATCH v4 45/48] mm: shrinker: make global slab shrink lockless"
In reply to: Janusz Krzysztofik: "[PATCH v5 1/3] kunit: Report the count of test suites in a module"
Next in thread: Janusz Krzysztofik: "[PATCH v5 2/3] kunit: Make 'list' action available to kunit test modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 6:28 AM Janusz Krzysztofik
<janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> According to KTAP specification[1], results should always start from a
> header that provides a TAP protocol version, followed by a test plan with
> a count of items to be executed. That pattern should be followed at each
> nesting level. In the current implementation of the top-most, i.e., test
> suite level, those rules apply only for test suites built into the kernel,
> executed and reported on boot. Results submitted to dmesg from kunit test
> modules loaded later are missing those top-level headers.
>
> As a consequence, if a kunit test module provides more than one test suite
> then, without the top level test plan, external tools that are parsing
> dmesg for kunit test output are not able to tell how many test suites
> should be expected and whether to continue parsing after complete output
> from the first test suite is collected.
>
> Submit the top-level headers also from the kunit test module notifier
> initialization callback.
>
> v3: Fix new name of a structure moved to kunit namespace not updated in
> executor_test functions (lkp@xxxxxxxxx).
> v2: Use kunit_exec_run_tests() (Mauro, Rae), but prevent it from
> emitting the headers when called on load of non-test modules.
>

Hello!

This patch looks good. This series also applies cleanly for me now.

I have tested this patch and it works well. I realize this is a bigger
change by exposing the executor function but I think it is overall
cleaner. I am interested in what David Gow thinks about the change.

Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!
Rae

> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/ktap.html#
>
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/kunit/test.h | 8 ++++++++
> lib/kunit/executor.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> lib/kunit/test.c | 6 +++++-
> 4 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index 011e0d6bb506c..3d002e6b252f2 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -256,6 +256,12 @@ struct kunit_suite {
> int suite_init_err;
> };
>
> +/* Stores an array of suites, end points one past the end */
> +struct kunit_suite_set {
> + struct kunit_suite * const *start;
> + struct kunit_suite * const *end;
> +};
> +
> /**
> * struct kunit - represents a running instance of a test.
> *
> @@ -317,6 +323,8 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
>
> void __kunit_test_suites_exit(struct kunit_suite **suites, int num_suites);
>
> +void kunit_exec_run_tests(struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, bool builtin);
> +
> #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> int kunit_run_all_tests(void);
> #else
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index dc295150c4e57..5ef90c334eb0f 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -104,13 +104,7 @@ kunit_filter_glob_tests(const struct kunit_suite *const suite, const char *test_
> static char *kunit_shutdown;
> core_param(kunit_shutdown, kunit_shutdown, charp, 0644);
>
> -/* Stores an array of suites, end points one past the end */
> -struct suite_set {
> - struct kunit_suite * const *start;
> - struct kunit_suite * const *end;
> -};
> -
> -static void kunit_free_suite_set(struct suite_set suite_set)
> +static void kunit_free_suite_set(struct kunit_suite_set suite_set)
> {
> struct kunit_suite * const *suites;
>
> @@ -119,16 +113,17 @@ static void kunit_free_suite_set(struct suite_set suite_set)
> kfree(suite_set.start);
> }
>
> -static struct suite_set kunit_filter_suites(const struct suite_set *suite_set,
> - const char *filter_glob,
> - char *filters,
> - char *filter_action,
> - int *err)
> +static struct kunit_suite_set
> +kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set,
> + const char *filter_glob,
> + char *filters,
> + char *filter_action,
> + int *err)
> {
> int i, j, k;
> int filter_count = 0;
> struct kunit_suite **copy, **copy_start, *filtered_suite, *new_filtered_suite;
> - struct suite_set filtered = {NULL, NULL};
> + struct kunit_suite_set filtered = {NULL, NULL};
> struct kunit_glob_filter parsed_glob;
> struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters = NULL;
>
> @@ -230,17 +225,24 @@ static void kunit_handle_shutdown(void)
>
> }
>
> -static void kunit_exec_run_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set)
> +#endif
> +
> +void kunit_exec_run_tests(struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, bool builtin)
> {
> size_t num_suites = suite_set->end - suite_set->start;
>
> - pr_info("KTAP version 1\n");
> - pr_info("1..%zu\n", num_suites);
> + if (builtin || num_suites) {
> + pr_info("KTAP version 1\n");
> + pr_info("1..%zu\n", num_suites);
> + }
>
> __kunit_test_suites_init(suite_set->start, num_suites);
> }
>
> -static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set, bool include_attr)
> +#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> +
> +static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set,
> + bool include_attr)
> {
> struct kunit_suite * const *suites;
> struct kunit_case *test_case;
> @@ -265,7 +267,9 @@ static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set, bool include_attr
>
> int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> {
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {__kunit_suites_start, __kunit_suites_end};
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + __kunit_suites_start, __kunit_suites_end,
> + };
> int err = 0;
> if (!kunit_enabled()) {
> pr_info("kunit: disabled\n");
> @@ -282,7 +286,7 @@ int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> }
>
> if (!action_param)
> - kunit_exec_run_tests(&suite_set);
> + kunit_exec_run_tests(&suite_set, true);
> else if (strcmp(action_param, "list") == 0)
> kunit_exec_list_tests(&suite_set, false);
> else if (strcmp(action_param, "list_attr") == 0)
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c
> index 3e0a1c99cb4e8..4084071d0eb5b 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c
> @@ -43,8 +43,10 @@ static void parse_filter_test(struct kunit *test)
> static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_test_cases);
> @@ -67,8 +69,10 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
> static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_test_cases);
> @@ -94,8 +98,10 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test)
> static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_test_cases);
> @@ -144,8 +150,10 @@ static struct kunit_case dummy_attr_test_cases[] = {
> static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "normal_suite", dummy_attr_test_cases);
> @@ -179,8 +187,10 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test)
> static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases);
> @@ -197,8 +207,10 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
> static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_suite *subsuite[2] = {NULL};
> - struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[1]};
> - struct suite_set got;
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + .start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[1],
> + };
> + struct kunit_suite_set got;
> int err = 0;
>
> subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite", dummy_attr_test_cases);
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index cb9797fa6303f..8b2808068497f 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -736,7 +736,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_test_suites_exit);
> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> static void kunit_module_init(struct module *mod)
> {
> - __kunit_test_suites_init(mod->kunit_suites, mod->num_kunit_suites);
> + struct kunit_suite_set suite_set = {
> + mod->kunit_suites, mod->kunit_suites + mod->num_kunit_suites,
> + };
> +
> + kunit_exec_run_tests(&suite_set, false);
> }
>
> static void kunit_module_exit(struct module *mod)
> --
> 2.41.0
>

Next message: Dan Williams: "Re: [PATCH 0/4] keys: Introduce a keys frontend for attestation reports"
Previous message: Dave Chinner: "Re: [PATCH v4 45/48] mm: shrinker: make global slab shrink lockless"
In reply to: Janusz Krzysztofik: "[PATCH v5 1/3] kunit: Report the count of test suites in a module"
Next in thread: Janusz Krzysztofik: "[PATCH v5 2/3] kunit: Make 'list' action available to kunit test modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]