On 4/4/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > What about kunit_test_init_section_suite? >> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 >> > >> >> thanks, >> -- Shuah >
