Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code

[Brendan Higgins]

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?

> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5
> >
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah