On 4/8/22 11:34 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
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?
Sorry for the delay in responding.
As long as the two names are different enough to tell them apart.
The proposed name does that.
thanks,
-- Shuah
