Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: KUnit: Update the instructions on how to test static functions

[Arthur Grillo]

On 09/01/24 02:44, David Gow wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 04:24, Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Now that we have the VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT and EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT macros,
>> update the instructions to stop recommending including .c files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Fix #if condition
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240108-kunit-doc-export-v1-1-119368df0d96@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
> 
> Thanks very much: I think we definitely should be recommending
> VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT and EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT more.
> 
> I do wonder, though, whether we should also keep the conditional
> ``#include`` example. There are some tests already using it, and it
> can be more convenient than exporting lots of symbols in some cases. I
> still think we should encourage the
> VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT/EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT features more, but maybe we
> leave the existing documentation there underneath. (e.g.
> "Alternatively, we can conditionally…")

I agree that, in some cases, the include way can be convenient. So, if
it's not discouraged/deprecated, I think it's better to keep the old
way.

I sent this patch because of a comment in a patch that I sent[1]. That
was when I discovered these macros and noticed the absence of
documentation on them.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/5z66ivuhfrzrnuzt6lwjfm5fuozxlgqsco3qb5rfzyf6mil5ms@2svqtlcncyjj/

~Arthur Grillo

> 
> Otherwise, this looks good, and if people think that we should avoid
> recommending the conditional-#include method (which _is_ ugly), then
> I'm happy to accept this as-is.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- David