mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/linux.git
KUnit: Docs: usage: wording fixes
Fix minor grammar and punctutation glitches. Hyphenate "architecture-specific" instances. Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
1f4dde5712
commit
873ddeb881
|
@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ behavior of a function called ``add``; the first parameter is always of type
|
|||
the second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be; the
|
||||
last value is what the value actually is. If ``add`` passes all of these
|
||||
expectations, the test case, ``add_test_basic`` will pass; if any one of these
|
||||
expectations fail, the test case will fail.
|
||||
expectations fails, the test case will fail.
|
||||
|
||||
It is important to understand that a test case *fails* when any expectation is
|
||||
violated; however, the test will continue running, potentially trying other
|
||||
|
@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ Example:
|
|||
kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite);
|
||||
|
||||
In the above example the test suite, ``example_test_suite``, would run the test
|
||||
cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``,
|
||||
cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``;
|
||||
each would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and would
|
||||
have ``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it.
|
||||
``kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite)`` registers the test suite with the
|
||||
|
@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ through some sort of indirection where a function is exposed as part of an API
|
|||
such that the definition of that function can be changed without affecting the
|
||||
rest of the code base. In the kernel this primarily comes from two constructs,
|
||||
classes, structs that contain function pointers that are provided by the
|
||||
implementer, and architecture specific functions which have definitions selected
|
||||
implementer, and architecture-specific functions which have definitions selected
|
||||
at compile time.
|
||||
|
||||
Classes
|
||||
|
@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ KUnit on non-UML architectures
|
|||
By default KUnit uses UML as a way to provide dependencies for code under test.
|
||||
Under most circumstances KUnit's usage of UML should be treated as an
|
||||
implementation detail of how KUnit works under the hood. Nevertheless, there
|
||||
are instances where being able to run architecture specific code or test
|
||||
are instances where being able to run architecture-specific code or test
|
||||
against real hardware is desirable. For these reasons KUnit supports running on
|
||||
other architectures.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ writing normal KUnit tests. One special caveat is that you have to reset
|
|||
hardware state in between test cases; if this is not possible, you may only be
|
||||
able to run one test case per invocation.
|
||||
|
||||
.. TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): Add an actual example of an architecture
|
||||
.. TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): Add an actual example of an architecture-
|
||||
dependent KUnit test.
|
||||
|
||||
KUnit debugfs representation
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue