Re: [PATCH] lib/tests: kunit for associative array

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 09:11:01PM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 19:01:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > This is a kunit test for lib/assoc_array.c, which maintains a shadow model
> > across assoc_array operations, and checks its integrity after every
> > operation.
> > 
> > I wrote a draft version so that I could properly test 'assoc-array-fixes'
> > tag at Linus' tree, and spent today rewriting a new more polished version
> > with as good description as I could possibly could on how the seeded test
> > keys were cherry-picked. Along the way I also tweaked the numbers to be
> > a bit less messier set than in my original version.
> > 
> > The transcripts that follow were executed with this command-line:
> > 
> >     ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --raw_output assoc_array
> > 
> > With 'assoc-array-fixes' commits and its subsequent tag iterations all
> > eight tests pass, and without them all of them fail.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  lib/Kconfig.debug             |  15 +
> >  lib/tests/Makefile            |   1 +
> >  lib/tests/assoc_array_kunit.c | 570 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 586 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 lib/tests/assoc_array_kunit.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index 6b24a2c89b84..3e8d3852f53c 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -2857,6 +2857,21 @@ config HASHTABLE_KUNIT_TEST
> > 
> >  	  If unsure, say N.
> > 
> > +config ASSOC_ARRAY_KUNIT_TEST
> > +	tristate "KUnit test for assoc_array" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > +	depends on KUNIT
> > +	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > +	select ASSOCIATIVE_ARRAY
> > +	help
> > +	  This builds the assoc_array KUnit test suite.
> > +	  It tests the basic functionality of the API defined in
> > +	  include/linux/assoc_array.h.
> > +
> > +	  For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
> > +	  to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> > +
> > +	  If unsure, say N.
> > +
> >  config LINEAR_RANGES_TEST
> >  	tristate "KUnit test for linear_ranges"
> >  	depends on KUNIT
> > diff --git a/lib/tests/Makefile b/lib/tests/Makefile
> > index 3cac3b63a752..107e16b4ebc1 100644
> > --- a/lib/tests/Makefile
> > +++ b/lib/tests/Makefile
> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> > 
> >  # KUnit tests
> >  CFLAGS_bitfield_kunit.o := $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN)
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ASSOC_ARRAY_KUNIT_TEST) += assoc_array_kunit.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BASE64_KUNIT) += base64_kunit.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BITOPS_KUNIT) += bitops_kunit.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BITFIELD_KUNIT) += bitfield_kunit.o
> 
> Why does this one end with `_TEST` and the others do not? I see
> `LINEAR_RANGES_TEST` in the context above, but it also lacks `_KUINT`.
> There is `HASHTABLE_KUNIT_TEST` nearby too, so perhaps consistency has
> just never been popular around these parts.

A blind spot. I started with that name.

This is phasing down as an RF patch set with rhashtable migration
is already out.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Ben

Regardless, appreciate your feedback, thanks!

Br, Jarkko