On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 18:17, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/24/23 12:05, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > On 3/24/23 11:52, David Gow wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:51, Matti Vaittinen > >> <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 3/24/23 08:34, David Gow wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:11, Matti Vaittinen > >>>> <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> I think that sounds like a good strategy for now, and we can work on a > >>>> set of 'generic helpers' which have an associated bus and struct > >>>> kunit_device in the meantime. If we can continue to use > >>>> root_device_register until those are ready, that'd be very convenient. > >>> > >>> Would it be a tiny bit more acceptable if we did add a very simple: > >>> > >>> #define kunit_root_device_register(name) root_device_register(name) > >>> #define kunit_root_device_unregister(dev) root_device_unregister(dev) > >>> > >>> to include/kunit/device.h (or somesuch) > >>> > >>> This should help us later to at least spot the places where > >>> root_device_[un]register() is abused and (potentially mass-)covert them > >>> to use the proper helpers when they're available. > >>> > >> > >> Great idea. > >> > >> The code I've been playing with has the following in > >> include/kunit/device.h: > >> > >> /* Register a new device against a KUnit test. */ > >> struct device *kunit_device_register(struct kunit *test, const char > >> *name); > >> /* Unregister a device created by kunit_device_register() early (i.e., > >> before test cleanup). */ > >> void kunit_device_unregister(struct kunit *test, struct device *dev); > >> > >> If we used the same names, and just forwarded them to > >> root_device_register() and root_device_unregister() for now > >> (discarding the struct kunit pointer), then I expect we could just > >> swap out the implementation to gain the extra functionality. > > There's one thing though. If the goal is to do a direct replacement and > if automatic device deletion upon test completion / test abort is > planned - then it should be there also for these initial wrappers. > Yeah, that's an excellent point. It's a pretty subtle change in behaviour to suddenly introduce that, so changing it behind the scenes is probably unwise. > If these wrappers don't yet include the automatic device clean-up - then > it probably makes more sense to just do the kunit_root_device_* defines > because the tests are likely to need removing the explicit device > clean-ups when proper APIs are finished. > I sent out my prototype implementation of this here, which does do the automatic cleanup: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230325043104.3761770-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#mf797239a8bce11630875fdf60aab9ed627add1f0 It's probably overkill to squeeze into your patch series, though, given it also adds and uses a whole new kunit_defer() API. Cheers, -- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
