On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for creating a test for that, that's really appreciated :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> > Add a simple test that checks whether the action is indeed called right
> > away and that it is not called on the final drm_dev_put().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > index 1652dca11d30c..a645ea42aee56 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> > #define TEST_TIMEOUT_MS 100
> >
> > struct managed_test_priv {
> > + struct drm_device *drm;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > bool action_done;
> > wait_queue_head_t action_wq;
> > };
> > @@ -26,42 +28,75 @@ static void drm_action(struct drm_device *drm, void *ptr)
> >
> > static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > - struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> > - struct drm_device *drm;
> > - struct device *dev;
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> > - init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
> > + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
> > + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> > +
> > + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> > + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
>
> I think we'll need two patches here, one to convert to having an init
> function, and one to actually add the new test, it's pretty confusing as
> it is.
>
> >
> > - drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
> > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> > + msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> > +}
> >
> > - ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(drm, drm_action, priv);
> > +static void drm_test_managed_release_action(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - ret = drm_dev_register(drm, 0);
> > + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> > KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - drm_dev_unregister(drm);
> > - drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, dev);
> > + drmm_release_action(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, priv->action_done);
> > + priv->action_done = false;
> > +
> > + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> > + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
> >
> > ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> > msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> > - KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int drm_managed_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> > +
> > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
>
> Also, I know that it was there before, but I'm not sure it's valid from
> a lifetime point of view. Or at least, we have to think hard enough
> about it to just remove that construct
>
> > + priv->dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev);
> > +
> > + priv->drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, priv->dev, sizeof(*priv->drm),
> > + 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->drm);
>
> For example by storing the drm_device struct in the priv structure
> directly, and thus everything will just work out.
Sure, makes sense, I'll include it in the patch that moves device alloc
to .init().
Thanks,
-Michał
>
> Maxime
