On 9/23/22 11:15, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 22.09.22 um 16:25 schrieb Maxime Ripard: >> drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode() is in charge of finding a proper >> drm_display_mode from the definition we got in the video= command line >> argument. >> >> Let's add some unit tests to make sure we're not getting any regressions >> there. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c >> index bbc535cc50dd..d553e793e673 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c >> @@ -1237,3 +1237,7 @@ int drm_client_modeset_dpms(struct drm_client_dev *client, int mode) >> return ret; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_client_modeset_dpms); >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DRM_KUNIT_TEST >> +#include "tests/drm_client_modeset_test.c" >> +#endif > > I strongly dislike this style of including source files in each other. > It's a recipe for all kind of build errors. Can you do something else? > This seems to be the convention used to test static functions and what's documented in the Kunit docs: https://kunit.dev/third_party/kernel/docs/tips.html#testing-static-functions I agree with you that's not ideal but I think that consistency with how it is done by other subsystems is also important. > As the tested function is an internal interface, maybe export a wrapper > if tests are enabled, like this: > > #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_KUNIT_TEST > struct drm_display_mode * > drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode_kunit(drm_conenctor) > { > return drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode(connector) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode_kunit) > #endif > > The wrapper's declaration can be located in the kunit test file. > But that's also not nice since we are artificially exposing these only to allow the static functions to be called from unit tests. And would be a different approach than the one used by all other subsystems... -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
