Hi Mauro,
Thanks for review.
On Monday, 11 September 2023 10:52:51 CEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:32:39 +0200
> Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In a body of a subtest with dynamic sub-subtests, it is illegal to call
> > igt_fail() and its variants from outside of a dynamic sub-subtest body.
> > On the other hand, it is perfectly legal to call either igt_skip() and
> > friends or __igt_abort() or its variant from there.
> >
> > In the current implementation of igt_kunit(), there are several places
> > where igt_fail() is called despite being illegal. Moreover, it is called
> > with IGT_EXIT_ABORT as an argument with no good reason for using such
> > aggressive method that forces CI to trigger system reboot (in most cases
> > igt_runner can decide if abort is required).
> >
> > Follow igt_kselftests() pattern more closely, where similar setup and
> > cleanup operations are performed but their potential errors are processed
> > in a more friendly way. Move common cleanup and their corresponding setup
> > steps out of the subtest body. Place the latter as requirements in a
> > preceding igt_fixture section. Replace remaining illegal igt_fail() calls
> > with more friendly skips. Let igt_runner decide if abort is needed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/igt_kmod.c | 75 +++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/igt_kmod.c b/lib/igt_kmod.c
> > index 1d1cd51170..78b8eb8f53 100644
> > --- a/lib/igt_kmod.c
> > +++ b/lib/igt_kmod.c
...
> > @@ -825,24 +793,21 @@ static void __igt_kunit(const char *module_name, const char *opts)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -unload:
> > - igt_ktest_end(&tst);
> > -
> > - igt_ktest_fini(&tst);
> > -
> > - igt_skip_on_f(skip, "Skipping test, as probing KUnit module failed\n");
> > -
> > - if (fail)
> > - igt_fail(IGT_EXIT_ABORT);
> > -
> > ret = ktap_parser_stop();
> >
> > - if (ret != 0)
> > - igt_fail(IGT_EXIT_ABORT);
> > + igt_skip_on_f(ret, "KTAP parser failed\n");
> > }
> >
> > void igt_kunit(const char *module_name, const char *name, const char *opts)
> > {
> > + struct igt_ktest tst;
> > +
> > + if (igt_ktest_init(&tst, module_name) != 0)
> > + return;
>
> Shouldn't it be calling igt_skip() here too?
Maybe yes. I've chosen to follow the algorithm used in igt_kselftest. There
was an igt_skip() variant there initially but in 2017 that was converted to
the current return only by Peter with IGT commit 9f92893b11e8 ("lib/igt_kmod:
Don't call igt_assert or igt_require without a fixture"). However,
justification for dropping igt_require() instead of calling it from an
igt_fixture section may not apply to kunit modules:
"If kmod_module_new_from_name fails, ... return normally from igt_kselftest,
matching behaviour when the module loading is successful but it doesn't
contain selftests."
While i915 could be built with no selftests included, a kunit module without
any tests doesn't make sense, then silent return may be not what we need.
Thanks,
Janusz
>
> > +
> > + igt_fixture
> > + igt_require(igt_ktest_begin(&tst) == 0);
> > +
> > /*
> > * We need to use igt_subtest here, as otherwise it may crash with:
> > * skipping is allowed only in fixtures, subtests or igt_simple_main
> > @@ -854,7 +819,11 @@ void igt_kunit(const char *module_name, const char *name, const char *opts)
> > name = module_name;
> >
> > igt_subtest_with_dynamic(name)
> > - __igt_kunit(module_name, opts);
> > + __igt_kunit(&tst, opts);
> > +
> > + igt_ktest_end(&tst);
> > +
> > + igt_ktest_fini(&tst);
> > }
> >
> > static int open_parameters(const char *module_name)
>
