On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:34 PM Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Sounds fine to me. Shuah, does that sound OK to you? > >> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > >> > > >> > >> thanks, > >> -- Shuah > >
