On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:28:32 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, selftests are handled on a different way with regards to module
probe, so I guess we need the igt_skip there if modprobe fails.
Well, you can probably simulate it by renaming a Kunit module
and see how IGT will handle that with the current code and with
igt_skip().
(Btw, I intend to review the other patches on this series, but need
some time to do tests, as some changes here are not trivial)
Regards,
Mauro
