Something went wrong. Try again.
(I'm so sorry!) Linux kernel mirror (for testing) git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
kernel os linux
Something went wrong. Try again.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0/* * KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper. * * Copyright (C) 2020, ROHM Semiconductors. * Author: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittien@fi.rohmeurope.com> */#include <kunit/test.h>
#include <linux/linear_range.h>
/* First things first. I deeply dislike unit-tests. I have seen all the hell * breaking loose when people who think the unit tests are "the silver bullet" * to kill bugs get to decide how a company should implement testing strategy... * * Believe me, it may get _really_ ridiculous. It is tempting to think that * walking through all the possible execution branches will nail down 100% of * bugs. This may lead to ideas about demands to get certain % of "test * coverage" - measured as line coverage. And that is one of the worst things * you can do. * * Ask people to provide line coverage and they do. I've seen clever tools * which generate test cases to test the existing functions - and by default * these tools expect code to be correct and just generate checks which are * passing when ran against current code-base. Run this generator and you'll get * tests that do not test code is correct but just verify nothing changes. * Problem is that testing working code is pointless. And if it is not * working, your test must not assume it is working. You won't catch any bugs * by such tests. What you can do is to generate a huge amount of tests. * Especially if you were are asked to proivde 100% line-coverage x_x. So what * does these tests - which are not finding any bugs now - do? * * They add inertia to every future development. I think it was Terry Pratchet * who wrote someone having same impact as thick syrup has to chronometre. * Excessive amount of unit-tests have this effect to development. If you do * actually find _any_ bug from code in such environment and try fixing it... * ...chances are you also need to fix the test cases. In sunny day you fix one * test. But I've done refactoring which resulted 500+ broken tests (which had * really zero value other than proving to managers that we do do "quality")... * * After this being said - there are situations where UTs can be handy. If you * have algorithms which take some input and should produce output - then you * can implement few, carefully selected simple UT-cases which test this. I've * previously used this for example for netlink and device-tree data parsing * functions. Feed some data examples to functions and verify the output is as * expected. I am not covering all the cases but I will see the logic should be * working. * * Here we also do some minor testing. I don't want to go through all branches * or test more or less obvious things - but I want to see the main logic is * working. And I definitely don't want to add 500+ test cases that break when * some simple fix is done x_x. So - let's only add few, well selected tests * which ensure as much logic is good as possible. */
/* * Test Range 1: * selectors: 2 3 4 5 6 * values (5): 10 20 30 40 50 * * Test Range 2: * selectors: 7 8 9 10 * values (4): 100 150 200 250 */
#define RANGE1_MIN 10#define RANGE1_MIN_SEL 2#define RANGE1_STEP 10
/* 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 */static const unsigned int range1_sels[] = { RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 1, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 2, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 3, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 4 };/* 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 */static const unsigned int range1_vals[] = { RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP, RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 2, RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 3, RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 4 };
#define RANGE2_MIN 100#define RANGE2_MIN_SEL 7#define RANGE2_STEP 50
/* 7, 8, 9, 10 */static const unsigned int range2_sels[] = { RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 1, RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 2, RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 3 };/* 100, 150, 200, 250 */static const unsigned int range2_vals[] = { RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP, RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 2, RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 3 };
#define RANGE1_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range1_vals))#define RANGE2_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range2_vals))#define RANGE_NUM_VALS (RANGE1_NUM_VALS + RANGE2_NUM_VALS)
#define RANGE1_MAX_SEL (RANGE1_MIN_SEL + RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1)#define RANGE1_MAX_VAL (range1_vals[RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1])
#define RANGE2_MAX_SEL (RANGE2_MIN_SEL + RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1)#define RANGE2_MAX_VAL (range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1])
#define SMALLEST_SEL RANGE1_MIN_SEL#define SMALLEST_VAL RANGE1_MIN
static struct linear_range testr[] = { LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MAX_SEL, RANGE1_STEP), LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MAX_SEL, RANGE2_STEP),};
static void range_test_get_value(struct kunit *test){ int ret, i; unsigned int sel, val;
for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { sel = range1_sels[i]; ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range1_vals[i]); } for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) { sel = range2_sels[i]; ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range2_vals[i]); } ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel + 1, &val); KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 0, ret);}
static void range_test_get_selector_high(struct kunit *test){ int ret, i; unsigned int sel; bool found;
for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], range1_vals[i], &sel, &found); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]); KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); }
ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MAX_VAL + 1, &sel, &found); KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, ret, 0);
ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MIN - 1, &sel, &found); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[0]);}
static void range_test_get_value_amount(struct kunit *test){ int ret;
ret = linear_range_values_in_range_array(&testr[0], 2); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (int)RANGE_NUM_VALS, ret);}
static void range_test_get_selector_low(struct kunit *test){ int i, ret; unsigned int sel; bool found;
for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, range1_vals[i], &sel, &found); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]); KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); } for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) { ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, range2_vals[i], &sel, &found); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[i]); KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); }
/* * Seek value greater than range max => get_selector_*_low should * return Ok - but set found to false as value is not in range */ ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1] + 1, &sel, &found);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1]); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found);}
static struct kunit_case range_test_cases[] = { KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value_amount), KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_high), KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_low), KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value), {},};
static struct kunit_suite range_test_module = { .name = "linear-ranges-test", .test_cases = range_test_cases,};
kunit_test_suites(&range_test_module);
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper");MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");