Hi, Marcos! > On Oct 10, 2024, at 20:31, Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 15:52 +0800, Wardenjohn wrote: >> Add selftest test cases to sysfs attribute 'stack_order'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wardenjohn <zhangwarden@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../testing/selftests/livepatch/test-sysfs.sh | 71 >> +++++++++++++++++++ >> .../selftests/livepatch/test_modules/Makefile | 5 +- >> .../test_klp_livepatch_noreplace.c | 53 ++++++++++++++ >> .../test_klp_livepatch_noreplace2.c | 53 ++++++++++++++ >> .../test_klp_livepatch_noreplace3.c | 53 ++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 234 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 >> tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_livepatch_nor >> eplace.c >> create mode 100644 >> tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_livepatch_nor >> eplace2.c >> create mode 100644 >> tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_livepatch_nor >> eplace3.c > > IIUC, you only need to test the stack order by loading LP modules. In > this case you could use our currently existing LP testing module for > that, right? That's what we currently do when testing different sysfs > attributes. > Yes, in fact, those three module I submitted is reuse the existing LP testing module of 'test_klp_livepatch'. Because I found some module in test module set "klp_replace" attribute true. If a module set this attribute true, it will disable the previous module. What's more, testing this 'stack_order' attribute need more than one module, hoping to change the same function. And breaking the '.replace' value of existing module may not be a good way. So I decided to copy more test module with '.replace=false' and this module is changing the same function. Regards. Wardenjohn.
