On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:13 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Per [1], we might not need the array-of-array of kunit_suite's. > > This RFC patch previews the changes we'd make to the executor to > accommodate that by making the executor automatically flatten the > kunit_suite*** into a kunit_suite**. > > The test filtering support [2] added the largest dependency on the > current kunit_suite*** layout, so this patch is based on that. > > It actually drastically simplifies the code, so it might be useful to > keep the auto-flattening step until we actually make the change. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/101d12fc9250b7a445ff50a9e7a25cd74d0e16eb.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit&id=3b29021ddd10cfb6b2565c623595bd3b02036f33 > > Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- I really like this. My only real concern is that it's a little unclear exactly what the resulting layout is, particularly as to what the "make_suite_set" function does. It'd be nice to have some more documentation, either as a comment on the function or a more detailed commit message, which explicitly describes the old format (an array (with start and end pointers) of NULL-terminated arrays of suites), and the new format (a single, NULL-terminated array with both start and end pointers). Re: NULL termination. If we're already using both start and end pointers, the NULL terminator seems useless. (And if we've got a NULL terminator, why are we passing the end pointer around.) It's not super-clear why we'd want both, though the comments in this reply do clarify things a bit: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAGS_qxoziNGNVpsUfvUfOReADY0PdriV2gJJ7+LUzzd+7BU-Ow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Finally, if we do want a runtime way of adding suites to the executor's list at runtime (which was suggested as a way of working around some suites which might need extra, global, initialisation), this might change how that'd have to be implemented a bit. I'm not too worried about that, though: it's something that's probably better served with something like a linked list of suite_sets or the like, anyway. In any case, I've tested this in the non-module case, and it seems to work fine. Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- David
