On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:28:47AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:34:03AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:45:06PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This follows the discussion here: > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230324123157.bbwvfq4gsxnlnfwb@houat/ > > > > > > > > > > This shows a couple of inconsistencies with regard to how device-managed > > > > > resources are cleaned up. Basically, devm resources will only be cleaned up > > > > > if the device is attached to a bus and bound to a driver. Failing any of > > > > > these cases, a call to device_unregister will not end up in the devm > > > > > resources being released. > > > > > > > > > > We had to work around it in DRM to provide helpers to create a device for > > > > > kunit tests, but the current discussion around creating similar, generic, > > > > > helpers for kunit resumed interest in fixing this. > > > > > > > > > > This can be tested using the command: > > > > > ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/base/test/ > > > > > > > > > > I added the fix David suggested back in that discussion which does fix > > > > > the tests. The SoB is missing, since David didn't provide it back then. > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think, > > > > > Maxime > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > It's in my review queue, still trying to catch up... > > > > I didn't make it here this week, sorry. > > np, I just don't want that patch to disappear into the ether :) > > > I kind of worry about encoding the current "odd" functionality in a > > test as being the correct thing, but will look at it closer next week. > > I don't think I'm doing that? The tests we've added are all how we think > it should behave, the broken ones being skipped to avoid any failures. > > The last patch drops the kunit_skip() to make sure that it's tested > going forward. > > So we shouldn't encode the odd behaviour anywhere in this series, unless > I got you wrong? No you are correct, I was mis-remembering things. This looks good, thanks for sticking with it, all now applied to my tree. greg k-h
