Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:50:30 -0600 |
| |
On 4/8/22 11:34 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:34 PM Martin Fernandez > <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/4/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:37 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Brendan, >>>> >>>> On 3/11/22 12:28 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>> Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called >>>>> kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the >>>>> registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and >>>>> data marked __initdata. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> >>>>> Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>> >>>> I almost applied it ... >>>> >>>>> This is a follow-up to the RFC here[1]. >>>>> >>>>> This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[2] in which the user >>>>> was >>>>> attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional >>>>> solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will >>>>> need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase >>>>> is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration >>>>> macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. >>>>> >>>>> Changes since last version: >>>>> - I added more to the kunit_test_init_suites() kernel-doc comment >>>>> detailing "how" the modpost warnings are suppressed in addition to >>>>> the existing information regarding "why" it is OK for the modpost >>>>> warnings to be suppressed. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/ >>>>> [2] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>> index b26400731c02..7f303a06bc97 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/kunit/test.h >>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>> @@ -379,6 +379,32 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) >>>>> >>>>> #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) >>>>> >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct >>>>> kunit_suite >>>>> + * containing init functions or init data. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it >>>>> suppresses >>>>> + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data >>>>> marked >>>>> + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon >>>>> boot >>>>> + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init >>>>> phase. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after >>>>> boot, these >>>>> + * tests must be excluded. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * The only thing this macro does that's different from >>>>> kunit_test_suites is >>>>> + * that it suffixes the array and suite declarations it makes with >>>>> _probe; >>>>> + * modpost suppresses warnings about referencing init data for symbols >>>>> named in >>>>> + * this manner. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ >>>>> + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ >>>>> + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ >>>>> + ##__suites) >>>>> + >>>>> +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) >>>>> + >>>>> #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ >>>>> for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; >>>>> test_case++) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The naming of the function and macro are rather confusing and can become >>>> error prone. Let's find better naming scheme. >>> >>> Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name. I didn't have any better ideas >>> initially though. Any suggestions? >>> >> >> What about kunit_test_init_section_suite? > > Sounds fine to me. Shuah, does that sound OK to you? >
Sorry for the delay in responding.
As long as the two names are different enough to tell them apart. The proposed name does that.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |