On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:38 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-05-14 15:16:55)
> > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> > index 86f65ba2bcf92..a15e6f8c41582 100644
> > --- a/kunit/test.c
> > +++ b/kunit/test.c
> [..]
> > +
> > +void *kunit_kmalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit_kmalloc_params params;
> > + struct kunit_resource *res;
> > +
> > + params.size = size;
> > + params.gfp = gfp;
> > +
> > + res = kunit_alloc_resource(test,
> > + kunit_kmalloc_init,
> > + kunit_kmalloc_free,
> > + ¶ms);
> > +
> > + if (res)
> > + return res->allocation;
> > + else
> > + return NULL;
>
> Can be written as
>
> if (res)
> return ....
> return
>
> and some static analysis tools prefer this.
Sounds reasonable, will fix in next revision.
> > +}
> > +
> > +void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit_resource *resource, *resource_safe;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&test->lock, flags);
>
> Ah ok, test->lock is protecting everything now? Does it need to be a
> spinlock, or can it be a mutex?
No it needs to be a spin lock. There are some conceivable
circumstances where the test object can be accessed by code in which
it isn't safe to sleep.
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(resource,
> > + resource_safe,
> > + &test->resources,
> > + node) {
> > + kunit_free_resource(test, resource);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&test->lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
