On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:52:50AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:53 AM Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:22 PM Luis Chamberlain [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:26:02AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/kunit/example-test.c b/kunit/example-test.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..f44b8ece488bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/kunit/example-test.c

<-- snip -->

quoted

+/*
+ * This defines a suite or grouping of tests.
+ *
+ * Test cases are defined as belonging to the suite by adding them to
+ * `kunit_cases`.
+ *
+ * Often it is desirable to run some function which will set up things which
+ * will be used by every test; this is accomplished with an `init` function
+ * which runs before each test case is invoked. Similarly, an `exit` function
+ * may be specified which runs after every test case and can be used to for
+ * cleanup. For clarity, running tests in a test module would behave as follows:
+ *

To be clear this is not the kernel module init, but rather the kunit
module init. I think using kmodule would make this clearer to a reader.

Seems reasonable. Will fix in next revision.

quoted

quoted

+ * module.init(test);
+ * module.test_case[0](test);
+ * module.exit(test);
+ * module.init(test);
+ * module.test_case[1](test);
+ * module.exit(test);
+ * ...;
+ */

Do you think it might be clearer yet to rename `struct kunit_module
*module;` to `struct kunit_suite *suite;`?

Yes. Definitely. Or struct kunit_test. Up to you.

  Luis