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

[Shuah Khan]

On 9/20/24 01:10, David Gow wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 00:01, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-kees@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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.

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

thanks,
-- Shuah