~ [ source navigation ] ~ [ diff markup ] ~ [ identifier search ] ~

TOMOYO Linux Cross Reference
Linux/lib/test_linear_ranges.c

Version: ~ [ linux-6.11.5 ] ~ [ linux-6.10.14 ] ~ [ linux-6.9.12 ] ~ [ linux-6.8.12 ] ~ [ linux-6.7.12 ] ~ [ linux-6.6.58 ] ~ [ linux-6.5.13 ] ~ [ linux-6.4.16 ] ~ [ linux-6.3.13 ] ~ [ linux-6.2.16 ] ~ [ linux-6.1.114 ] ~ [ linux-6.0.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.19.17 ] ~ [ linux-5.18.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.17.15 ] ~ [ linux-5.16.20 ] ~ [ linux-5.15.169 ] ~ [ linux-5.14.21 ] ~ [ linux-5.13.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.12.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.11.22 ] ~ [ linux-5.10.228 ] ~ [ linux-5.9.16 ] ~ [ linux-5.8.18 ] ~ [ linux-5.7.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.6.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.5.19 ] ~ [ linux-5.4.284 ] ~ [ linux-5.3.18 ] ~ [ linux-5.2.21 ] ~ [ linux-5.1.21 ] ~ [ linux-5.0.21 ] ~ [ linux-4.20.17 ] ~ [ linux-4.19.322 ] ~ [ linux-4.18.20 ] ~ [ linux-4.17.19 ] ~ [ linux-4.16.18 ] ~ [ linux-4.15.18 ] ~ [ linux-4.14.336 ] ~ [ linux-4.13.16 ] ~ [ linux-4.12.14 ] ~ [ linux-4.11.12 ] ~ [ linux-4.10.17 ] ~ [ linux-4.9.337 ] ~ [ linux-4.4.302 ] ~ [ linux-3.10.108 ] ~ [ linux-2.6.32.71 ] ~ [ linux-2.6.0 ] ~ [ linux-2.4.37.11 ] ~ [ unix-v6-master ] ~ [ ccs-tools-1.8.9 ] ~ [ policy-sample ] ~
Architecture: ~ [ i386 ] ~ [ alpha ] ~ [ m68k ] ~ [ mips ] ~ [ ppc ] ~ [ sparc ] ~ [ sparc64 ] ~

  1 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
  2 /*
  3  * KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper.
  4  *
  5  * Copyright (C) 2020, ROHM Semiconductors.
  6  * Author: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittien@fi.rohmeurope.com>
  7  */
  8 #include <kunit/test.h>
  9 
 10 #include <linux/linear_range.h>
 11 
 12 /* First things first. I deeply dislike unit-tests. I have seen all the hell
 13  * breaking loose when people who think the unit tests are "the silver bullet"
 14  * to kill bugs get to decide how a company should implement testing strategy...
 15  *
 16  * Believe me, it may get _really_ ridiculous. It is tempting to think that
 17  * walking through all the possible execution branches will nail down 100% of
 18  * bugs. This may lead to ideas about demands to get certain % of "test
 19  * coverage" - measured as line coverage. And that is one of the worst things
 20  * you can do.
 21  *
 22  * Ask people to provide line coverage and they do. I've seen clever tools
 23  * which generate test cases to test the existing functions - and by default
 24  * these tools expect code to be correct and just generate checks which are
 25  * passing when ran against current code-base. Run this generator and you'll get
 26  * tests that do not test code is correct but just verify nothing changes.
 27  * Problem is that testing working code is pointless. And if it is not
 28  * working, your test must not assume it is working. You won't catch any bugs
 29  * by such tests. What you can do is to generate a huge amount of tests.
 30  * Especially if you were are asked to proivde 100% line-coverage x_x. So what
 31  * does these tests - which are not finding any bugs now - do?
 32  *
 33  * They add inertia to every future development. I think it was Terry Pratchet
 34  * who wrote someone having same impact as thick syrup has to chronometre.
 35  * Excessive amount of unit-tests have this effect to development. If you do
 36  * actually find _any_ bug from code in such environment and try fixing it...
 37  * ...chances are you also need to fix the test cases. In sunny day you fix one
 38  * test. But I've done refactoring which resulted 500+ broken tests (which had
 39  * really zero value other than proving to managers that we do do "quality")...
 40  *
 41  * After this being said - there are situations where UTs can be handy. If you
 42  * have algorithms which take some input and should produce output - then you
 43  * can implement few, carefully selected simple UT-cases which test this. I've
 44  * previously used this for example for netlink and device-tree data parsing
 45  * functions. Feed some data examples to functions and verify the output is as
 46  * expected. I am not covering all the cases but I will see the logic should be
 47  * working.
 48  *
 49  * Here we also do some minor testing. I don't want to go through all branches
 50  * or test more or less obvious things - but I want to see the main logic is
 51  * working. And I definitely don't want to add 500+ test cases that break when
 52  * some simple fix is done x_x. So - let's only add few, well selected tests
 53  * which ensure as much logic is good as possible.
 54  */
 55 
 56 /*
 57  * Test Range 1:
 58  * selectors:   2       3       4       5       6
 59  * values (5):  10      20      30      40      50
 60  *
 61  * Test Range 2:
 62  * selectors:   7       8       9       10
 63  * values (4):  100     150     200     250
 64  */
 65 
 66 #define RANGE1_MIN 10
 67 #define RANGE1_MIN_SEL 2
 68 #define RANGE1_STEP 10
 69 
 70 /* 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 */
 71 static const unsigned int range1_sels[] = { RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 1,
 72                                             RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 2,
 73                                             RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 3,
 74                                             RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 4 };
 75 /* 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 */
 76 static const unsigned int range1_vals[] = { RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN +
 77                                             RANGE1_STEP,
 78                                             RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 2,
 79                                             RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 3,
 80                                             RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 4 };
 81 
 82 #define RANGE2_MIN 100
 83 #define RANGE2_MIN_SEL 7
 84 #define RANGE2_STEP 50
 85 
 86 /*  7, 8, 9, 10 */
 87 static const unsigned int range2_sels[] = { RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 1,
 88                                             RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 2,
 89                                             RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 3 };
 90 /* 100, 150, 200, 250 */
 91 static const unsigned int range2_vals[] = { RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN +
 92                                             RANGE2_STEP,
 93                                             RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 2,
 94                                             RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 3 };
 95 
 96 #define RANGE1_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range1_vals))
 97 #define RANGE2_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range2_vals))
 98 #define RANGE_NUM_VALS (RANGE1_NUM_VALS + RANGE2_NUM_VALS)
 99 
100 #define RANGE1_MAX_SEL (RANGE1_MIN_SEL + RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1)
101 #define RANGE1_MAX_VAL (range1_vals[RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1])
102 
103 #define RANGE2_MAX_SEL (RANGE2_MIN_SEL + RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1)
104 #define RANGE2_MAX_VAL (range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1])
105 
106 #define SMALLEST_SEL RANGE1_MIN_SEL
107 #define SMALLEST_VAL RANGE1_MIN
108 
109 static struct linear_range testr[] = {
110         LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MAX_SEL, RANGE1_STEP),
111         LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MAX_SEL, RANGE2_STEP),
112 };
113 
114 static void range_test_get_value(struct kunit *test)
115 {
116         int ret, i;
117         unsigned int sel, val;
118 
119         for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) {
120                 sel = range1_sels[i];
121                 ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val);
122                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
123                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range1_vals[i]);
124         }
125         for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) {
126                 sel = range2_sels[i];
127                 ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val);
128                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
129                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range2_vals[i]);
130         }
131         ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel + 1, &val);
132         KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 0, ret);
133 }
134 
135 static void range_test_get_selector_high(struct kunit *test)
136 {
137         int ret, i;
138         unsigned int sel;
139         bool found;
140 
141         for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) {
142                 ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], range1_vals[i],
143                                                      &sel, &found);
144                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
145                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]);
146                 KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found);
147         }
148 
149         ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MAX_VAL + 1,
150                                              &sel, &found);
151         KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, ret, 0);
152 
153         ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MIN - 1,
154                                              &sel, &found);
155         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
156         KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found);
157         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[0]);
158 }
159 
160 static void range_test_get_value_amount(struct kunit *test)
161 {
162         int ret;
163 
164         ret = linear_range_values_in_range_array(&testr[0], 2);
165         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (int)RANGE_NUM_VALS, ret);
166 }
167 
168 static void range_test_get_selector_low(struct kunit *test)
169 {
170         int i, ret;
171         unsigned int sel;
172         bool found;
173 
174         for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) {
175                 ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2,
176                                                           range1_vals[i], &sel,
177                                                           &found);
178                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
179                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]);
180                 KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found);
181         }
182         for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) {
183                 ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2,
184                                                           range2_vals[i], &sel,
185                                                           &found);
186                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
187                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[i]);
188                 KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found);
189         }
190 
191         /*
192          * Seek value greater than range max => get_selector_*_low should
193          * return Ok - but set found to false as value is not in range
194          */
195         ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2,
196                                         range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1] + 1,
197                                         &sel, &found);
198 
199         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
200         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1]);
201         KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found);
202 }
203 
204 static struct kunit_case range_test_cases[] = {
205         KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value_amount),
206         KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_high),
207         KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_low),
208         KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value),
209         {},
210 };
211 
212 static struct kunit_suite range_test_module = {
213         .name = "linear-ranges-test",
214         .test_cases = range_test_cases,
215 };
216 
217 kunit_test_suites(&range_test_module);
218 
219 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper");
220 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
221 

~ [ source navigation ] ~ [ diff markup ] ~ [ identifier search ] ~

kernel.org | git.kernel.org | LWN.net | Project Home | SVN repository | Mail admin

Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other countries.
TOMOYO® is a registered trademark of NTT DATA CORPORATION.

sflogo.php