On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:37 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Brendan, > > On 3/11/22 12:28 AM, 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> > > Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > I almost applied it ... > > > This is a follow-up to the RFC here[1]. > > > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[2] 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. > > > > Changes since last version: > > - I added more to the kunit_test_init_suites() kernel-doc comment > > detailing "how" the modpost warnings are suppressed in addition to > > the existing information regarding "why" it is OK for the modpost > > warnings to be suppressed. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > > > --- > > include/kunit/test.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > index b26400731c02..7f303a06bc97 100644 > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > @@ -379,6 +379,32 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > > > +/** > > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite > > + * containing init functions or init data. > > + * > > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > > + * > > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses > > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot > > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > > + * > > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these > > + * tests must be excluded. > > + * > > + * The only thing this macro does that's different from kunit_test_suites is > > + * that it suffixes the array and suite declarations it makes with _probe; > > + * modpost suppresses warnings about referencing init data for symbols named in > > + * this manner. > > + */ > > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > > + ##__suites) > > + > > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > > + > > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > > > > The naming of the function and macro are rather confusing and can become > error prone. Let's find better naming scheme. Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name. I didn't have any better ideas initially though. Any suggestions? > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > > > > thanks, > -- Shuah
