From patchwork Fri May 8 15:40:43 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "Vaittinen, Matti" X-Patchwork-Id: 11537007 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32A592A for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E1924953 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727113AbgEHPle (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 11:41:34 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com ([209.85.167.66]:40314 "EHLO mail-lf1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726815AbgEHPle (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 11:41:34 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u4so1769168lfm.7; Fri, 08 May 2020 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kMRstuQ4C+0ueulo9c/PMnnUy//TC/HKKnVfQiSa3p4=; b=hTsfCaYz/kfYHZOe+93LKl8Td9TIropE5njHT1WC5+k9H7whqfEAIvWgUJcxFvs8km 33rsqsQo43JnaVSKxvQM8gdKvCavooCtPPEfdar/R7eSy6IQ3sWw5lN+fiULuT9Sa3xB pDA9McK2+cRBd15r7bEltiBe3L5AhR0yQGanksxPAliy3xryMPEbScJ48PqZ1n73PHlD hES1foExJxF5GN8m/0F0eZKXZdPofH/4GqlwTTdw79ouESHekDNjKQdVSBJmuu+lMRV/ RbVCwnRqDYCjlPIC2JczWPiXRlhuBREyQDYZgmZcBi0AE8zrshwoddWOnoCzTyCiZill tWlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aeFue/2wI5Ur1MhgpzCVYP0Nwm75uizISOPvkCRl354zF+RdH Hp3uXlh1GIMt6PTmBjyv2ao= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOQ3UjhGF3Sk/gcmrjirWcblQfl4zumcpIyDW9vS5/2QS0QU51jfSpS/nGaPjp5UntBEw1HA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:58c8:: with SMTP id u8mr2382355lfo.142.1588952490703; Fri, 08 May 2020 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (62-78-225-252.bb.dnainternet.fi. [62.78.225.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j29sm1679056lfp.90.2020.05.08.08.41.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 May 2020 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 18:40:43 +0300 From: Matti Vaittinen To: matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com, mazziesaccount@gmail.com Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, sre@kernel.org, brendanhiggins@google.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v12 02/11] lib/test_linear_ranges: add a test for the 'linear_ranges' Message-ID: <311fea741bafdcd33804d3187c1642e24275e3e5.1588944082.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Add a KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper. Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins --- Changes since v11: Added missing dependency to LINEAR_RANGES lib. lib/Kconfig.debug | 12 +++ lib/Makefile | 1 + lib/test_linear_ranges.c | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 241 insertions(+) create mode 100644 lib/test_linear_ranges.c diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 21d9c5f6e7ec..f3322a620674 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2092,6 +2092,18 @@ config LIST_KUNIT_TEST If unsure, say N. +config LINEAR_RANGES_TEST + tristate "KUnit test for linear_ranges" + depends on KUNIT + select LINEAR_RANGES + help + This builds the linear_ranges unit test, which runs on boot. + Tests the linear_ranges logic correctness. + 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 TEST_UDELAY tristate "udelay test driver" help diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 20b9cfdcad69..cd548bfa8df9 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -310,3 +310,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o # KUnit tests obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o +obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o diff --git a/lib/test_linear_ranges.c b/lib/test_linear_ranges.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..676e0b8abcdd --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/test_linear_ranges.c @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper. + * + * Copyright (C) 2020, ROHM Semiconductors. + * Author: Matti Vaittinen + */ +#include + +#include + +/* 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[] = { + { + .min = RANGE1_MIN, + .min_sel = RANGE1_MIN_SEL, + .max_sel = RANGE1_MAX_SEL, + .step = RANGE1_STEP, + }, { + .min = RANGE2_MIN, + .min_sel = RANGE2_MIN_SEL, + .max_sel = RANGE2_MAX_SEL, + .step = 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_LICENSE("GPL");