Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Hello Dmitry, > Hi Dana, > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 06:31:45PM +0300, Dana Elfassy wrote: >> Currently input_grab_device() isn't covered by any tests >> Thus, adding a test to cover the cases: >> 1. The device is grabbed successfully >> 2. Trying to grab a device that is already grabbed by another input >> handle >> >> Signed-off-by: Dana Elfassy <dangel101@xxxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Use input_put_device() to decrement the refcount increased by get(). >> - Remove unnecessary struct input_handle test_handle variable. > > So this tests something different than what patch description states. > You are testing that there is no "recursive" grabbing happening (an API > could be designed to allow the same handle grab device several times). > This is a good and useful test, but you do want to also use 2nd separate > handle to see that it gets -EBUSY as well. And ideally we should have That was my fault since v1 had two different handles but since it wasn't releasing it, didn't add any value really so I asked Dana to just drop it. > another test verifying that the 2nd handle can successfully grab the > device once the first handle releases it. > That's the correct approach indeed and would make the test more useful. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
