Hi,
On 2023/7/20 18:07, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 09:12:14PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
suijingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi,
On 2023/7/10 15:47, Maxime Ripard wrote:
[...]
+
+/**
+ * drm_kunit_helper_context_alloc - Allocates an acquire context
+ * @test: The test context object
+ *
+ * Allocates and initializes a modeset acquire context.
+ *
+ * The context is tied to the kunit test context, so we must not call
+ * drm_modeset_acquire_fini() on it, it will be done so automatically.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * An ERR_PTR on error, a pointer to the newly allocated context otherwise
+ */
+struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *
+drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx;
+ int ret;
+
+ ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, ctx);
+
+ drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, 0);
+
+ ret = kunit_add_action_or_reset(test,
+ action_drm_release_context,
+ ctx);
+ if (ret)
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
+
+ return ctx;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc);
+
I think all of the patch inside this series are quite well.
Personally, I can't find problems in it.
But I still want to ask a question:
Should the managed functions you introduced be prefixed with drmm_
(instead of drm_) ?
That's a good question. But personally I think that the drmm_ prefix
should be reserved for drm_device managed resources and helpers.
Yeah, to me drmm functions are meant for resources that are tied to the
DRM device lifetime. These resources are tied to the test lifetime, so
they shouldn't share the same prefix.
Okay then,
Thanks for reply.
As mindless programmer may still want to call drm_modeset_acquire_fini()
on the pointer returned by
drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc()?
The function kernel-doc already mentions that there's no need to do that
and that will be done automatically by kunit. So shouldn't be different of
other functions helper where the programmer didn't read the documentation.
Right
Maxime
