On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:31 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:15)
> > +
> > +static int kunit_resource_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit_test_resource_context *ctx =
> > + kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > + if (!ctx)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Should this use the test assertion logic to make sure that it's not
> failing allocations during init?
Yep. Will fix.
> BTW, maybe kunit allocation APIs should
> fail the test if they fail to allocate in general. Unless we're unit
> testing failure to allocate problems.
Yeah, I thought about that. I wasn't sure how people would feel about
it, and I thought it would be a pain to tease out all the issues
arising from aborting in different contexts when someone might not
expect it.
I am thinking later we can have kunit_kmalloc_or_abort variants? And
then we can punt this issue to a later time?
> > +
> > + test->priv = ctx;
> > +
> > + kunit_init_test(&ctx->test, "test_test_context");
> > +
> > + return 0;
