On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:26 AM Daniel Gutson > <daniel.gutson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson > > > <daniel.gutson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió: > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > >> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > > > >> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > > > >> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > > > >> > data marked __initdata. > > > >> > > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > --- > > > >> > > > > >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > > > >> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > > > >> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > > > >> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > > > >> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > > > >> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > > >> > > > > >> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > > >> > > > > >> > --- > > > >> > > > >> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do > > > >> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information > > > >> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different > > > >> macro. > > > >> > > > >> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list? > > > > > > > > > > I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests > > > _after_ the init phase. > > > In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that > > > run during and those that run after. > > > (Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init. > > > If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more > > > scalable option) > > > > > > Is it likely we'd have tests run after? > > > Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for. > > > > > > For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run: > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615 > > > That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have > > > another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something. > > > > Hi folks, any update on this? I'm adding Richard Hughes since we > > need this for fwupd/LVFS, so he can provide more context. > > v1 of the patch was posted here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > It has the requisite Reviewed-by's and no one has complained about it. > So we're now waiting for that to get picked up into Shuah's tree and > into Linus' for 5.18 (possibly) or 5.19. It'll probably be 5.19, but it should be applied to Shuah's kunit-next branch end of this week begining of next and then you can use that as a base if you wish.
