[1/6] lib: math: Move kunit tests into tests/ subdir

From: Luis Felipe Hernandez <luis.hernandez093@gmail.com>

This patch is a follow-up task from a discussion stemming from point 3
in a recent patch introducing the int_pow kunit test [1] and
documentation regarding kunit test style and nomenclature [2].

Colocate all kunit test suites in lib/math/tests/ and
follow recommended naming convention for files <suite>_kunit.c
and kconfig entries CONFIG_<name>_KUNIT_TEST.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOS=-vh5TqHFCq_jo=ffq8v_nGgr6JsPnOZag3e6+19ysxQ@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
Link: https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html [2]

Signed-off-by: Luis Felipe Hernandez <luis.hernandez093@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
[Rebased on top of mm-nonmm-unstable.]
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
---
 arch/m68k/configs/amiga_defconfig                           | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/apollo_defconfig                          | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/atari_defconfig                           | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/bvme6000_defconfig                        | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/hp300_defconfig                           | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/mac_defconfig                             | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/multi_defconfig                           | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/mvme147_defconfig                         | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/mvme16x_defconfig                         | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/q40_defconfig                             | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/sun3_defconfig                            | 2 +-
 arch/m68k/configs/sun3x_defconfig                           | 2 +-
 arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64_defconfig                        | 2 +-
 lib/Kconfig.debug                                           | 6 +++---
 lib/math/Makefile                                           | 5 +----
 lib/math/tests/Makefile                                     | 5 ++++-
 lib/math/{test_div64.c => tests/div64_kunit.c}              | 0
 .../mul_u64_u64_div_u64_kunit.c}                            | 2 +-
 lib/math/{rational-test.c => tests/rational_kunit.c}        | 0
 19 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
 rename lib/math/{test_div64.c => tests/div64_kunit.c} (100%)
 rename lib/math/{test_mul_u64_u64_div_u64.c => tests/mul_u64_u64_div_u64_kunit.c} (98%)
 rename lib/math/{rational-test.c => tests/rational_kunit.c} (100%)

Hi all,

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:59 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 9:31 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> > From: Luis Felipe Hernandez <luis.hernandez093@gmail.com>
> >
> > This patch is a follow-up task from a discussion stemming from point 3
> > in a recent patch introducing the int_pow kunit test [1] and
> > documentation regarding kunit test style and nomenclature [2].
> >
> > Colocate all kunit test suites in lib/math/tests/ and
> > follow recommended naming convention for files <suite>_kunit.c
> > and kconfig entries CONFIG_<name>_KUNIT_TEST.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOS=-vh5TqHFCq_jo=ffq8v_nGgr6JsPnOZag3e6+19ysxQ@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html [2]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Felipe Hernandez <luis.hernandez093@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
> > [Rebased on top of mm-nonmm-unstable.]
> > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -2296,7 +2296,7 @@ config TEST_SORT
> >
> >           If unsure, say N.
> >
> > -config TEST_DIV64
> > +config DIV64_KUNIT_TEST
> >         tristate "64bit/32bit division and modulo test"
> >         depends on DEBUG_KERNEL || m
> >         help
> > @@ -2306,7 +2306,7 @@ config TEST_DIV64
> >
> >           If unsure, say N.
> >
> > -config TEST_MULDIV64
> > +config MULDIV64_KUNIT_TEST
> >         tristate "mul_u64_u64_div_u64() test"
> >         depends on DEBUG_KERNEL || m
> >         help
>
> This conflicts with "[PATCH] m68k: defconfig: Update defconfigs for
> v6.12-rc1"[1].  Of course the proper way forward would be to add
> "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" to all tests that still lack it, so I can
> just never queue that patch ;-)

What's the status of this series? I am asking because I am wondering if
I should queue [1] for v6.13, or just drop it, and send a patch to add
"default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" instead.

I saw the email from Andrew stating he applied it to his tree[2],
but that seems to have been dropped silently, and never made it into
linux-next?

Thanks!

> > @@ -2993,7 +2993,7 @@ config TEST_OBJPOOL
> >
> >           If unsure, say N.
> >
> > -config INT_POW_TEST
> > +config INT_POW_KUNIT_TEST
> >         tristate "Integer exponentiation (int_pow) test" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> >         depends on KUNIT
> >         default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/4092672cb64b86ec3f300b4cf0ea0c2db2b52e2e.1727699197.git.geert@linux-m68k.org/

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241015001409.C4A33C4CEC7@smtp.kernel.org/

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:33:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> > This conflicts with "[PATCH] m68k: defconfig: Update defconfigs for
> > v6.12-rc1"[1].  Of course the proper way forward would be to add
> > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" to all tests that still lack it, so I can
> > just never queue that patch ;-)
> 
> What's the status of this series? I am asking because I am wondering if
> I should queue [1] for v6.13, or just drop it, and send a patch to add
> "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" instead.
> 
> I saw the email from Andrew stating he applied it to his tree[2],
> but that seems to have been dropped silently, and never made it into
> linux-next?

Yes, sorry.  Believe it or not, I do try to avoid spraying out too many
emails.  David will recall better than I, but things got messy. 
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009162719.0adaea37@canb.auug.org.au was
perhaps the cause.

I'm sure David can being us up to date.

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:17 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:33:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > This conflicts with "[PATCH] m68k: defconfig: Update defconfigs for
> > > v6.12-rc1"[1].  Of course the proper way forward would be to add
> > > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" to all tests that still lack it, so I can
> > > just never queue that patch ;-)
> >
> > What's the status of this series? I am asking because I am wondering if
> > I should queue [1] for v6.13, or just drop it, and send a patch to add
> > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" instead.
> >
> > I saw the email from Andrew stating he applied it to his tree[2],
> > but that seems to have been dropped silently, and never made it into
> > linux-next?
>
> Yes, sorry.  Believe it or not, I do try to avoid spraying out too many
> emails.  David will recall better than I, but things got messy.
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009162719.0adaea37@canb.auug.org.au was
> perhaps the cause.

Fair enough.

> I'm sure David can being us up to date.

Probably the best solution is to respin after v6.13-rc1, to be included
in v6.13-rc2.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 15:34, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:17 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:33:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > This conflicts with "[PATCH] m68k: defconfig: Update defconfigs for
> > > > v6.12-rc1"[1].  Of course the proper way forward would be to add
> > > > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" to all tests that still lack it, so I can
> > > > just never queue that patch ;-)
> > >
> > > What's the status of this series? I am asking because I am wondering if
> > > I should queue [1] for v6.13, or just drop it, and send a patch to add
> > > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" instead.
> > >
> > > I saw the email from Andrew stating he applied it to his tree[2],
> > > but that seems to have been dropped silently, and never made it into
> > > linux-next?
> >
> > Yes, sorry.  Believe it or not, I do try to avoid spraying out too many
> > emails.  David will recall better than I, but things got messy.
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009162719.0adaea37@canb.auug.org.au was
> > perhaps the cause.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > I'm sure David can being us up to date.
>
> Probably the best solution is to respin after v6.13-rc1, to be included
> in v6.13-rc2.
>

Sorry about the delay, for some reason these were getting caught in my
spam filter...

Yeah, I think that's probably best. I'll go through and do a new
version post rc1.

In general, my preferred option is to use the 'default
KUNIT_ALL_TESTS' where possible. I'm sure there'll be some tests where
it makes sense to _not_ enable them by default, but we should where we
can. Ultimately, it's up to the test maintainer, though.

-- David


-- David