lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC v1 3/6] kunit: test: create a single centralized executor for all tests
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:04 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-12-16 14:05:52)
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index dba48304b3bd3..c070798ebb765 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -217,11 +217,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
> > * everything else is definitely initialized.
> > */
> > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) \
> > - static int kunit_suite_init##suite(void) \
>
> Oh this should have been __init before.

No, the stuff in this patch shouldn't be init. With the work that Alan
has been doing (adding support for modules, debugfs); the test code
can run after booting, so init in any of this code is incorrect.

> > - { \
> > - return kunit_run_tests(&suite); \
> > - } \
> > - late_initcall(kunit_suite_init##suite)
> > + static struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suite_##suite \
> > + __used __aligned(8) __section(.kunit_test_suites) = &suite
> >
> > /*
> > * Like kunit_alloc_resource() below, but returns the struct kunit_resource
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..978086cfd257d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/printk.h>
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * These symbols point to the .kunit_test_suites section and are defined in
> > + * include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h, and consequently must be extern.
> > + */
> > +extern struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suites_start[];
> > +extern struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suites_end[];
> > +
> > +static bool kunit_run_all_tests(void)
>
> Should be __init?

It could be, I think. Alan's code doesn't call this, so for now we
might as well make it __init.

> > +{
> > + struct kunit_suite **suite;
>
> Can this be const? And the linker references above too?

Good catch. Will fix.

> > + bool has_test_failed = false;
> > +
> > + for (suite = __kunit_suites_start;
> > + suite < __kunit_suites_end;
> > + ++suite) {
> > + if (kunit_run_tests(*suite))
> > + has_test_failed = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return !has_test_failed;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kunit_executor_init(void)
>
> Should be __init?

Will do.

> > +{
> > + if (kunit_run_all_tests())
> > + return 0;
> > + else
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> Why two functions instead of just one that is the target of the
> late_initcall? Nitpick: deindent that last return and take it out of the
> else.

Yeah, it probably makes more sense to just call kunit_run_all_tests
and have it return an int.

> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(kunit_executor_init);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-23 23:55    [W:0.076 / U:10.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site