On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 01:43:07PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 01:36:32PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:58AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:12:16AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * test_kunit_helper_alloc_device - Allocate a mock device for a KUnit test > > > > > > > > + * @test: The test context object > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * This allocates a fake struct &device to create a mock for a KUnit > > > > > > > > + * test. The device will also be bound to a fake driver. It will thus be > > > > > > > > + * able to leverage the usual infrastructure and most notably the > > > > > > > > + * device-managed resources just like a "real" device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What specific "usual infrastructure" are you wanting to access here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And again, if you want a fake device, make a virtual one, by just > > > > > > > calling device_create(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you wanting to do "more" with that device pointer than > > > > > > > device_create() can give you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I was (am) only interested in devm_ unwinding. I guess the > > > > > > device_create(), device_add(), device_remove()... (didn't study this > > > > > > sequence in details so sorry if there is errors) could've been sufficient > > > > > > for me. I haven't looked how much of the code that there is for 'platform > > > > > > devices' should be duplicated to support that sequence for testability > > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > > > > > Any device can access devm_ code, there's no need for it to be a > > > > > platform device at all. > > > > > > > > Sure but the resources are only released if the device is part of a bus, > > > > so it can't be a root_device (or bare device) either > > > > > > The resources are not cleaned up when the device is freed no matter if > > > it's on a bus or not? If so, then that's a bug that needs to be fixed, > > > and tested :) > > > > Please have a look at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230324123157.bbwvfq4gsxnlnfwb@houat/ > > > > I couldn't get an answer on whether it was considered a bug or not last > > time, but as you can see there's a clear difference between a root > > device and a platform device that has probed when it comes to resource > > cleanup. > > Great, testing shows there are bugs! :) I mean, it wasn't clear to me that it was indeed a bug or the intent behind devm was that it would only work when probed. Both seemed reasonable. > That's a great start of a test, how about submitting that in a way that > I can test it and we can go from there? Ack. I guess I'd need to arrange them somewhat differently for it to be useful and merge-able. How would you prefer them to be submitted, in two different files testing both the root devices and platform devices? Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
