Re: [PATCH v2] drm/sched: Create a fake device for KUnit tests

[Shixiong Ou]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for the review and the suggestions.
I had already sent v3 by the time your full comments came in -- here is
the v3 patch for reference:  https://lkml.org/lkml/2026/9/4/547

Both points will be addressed in v4 later.


On 2026/9/4 15:02, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-09-03 at 20:15 +0800, oushixiong1025@xxxxxxx wrote:
> […]
>
> > +
> >   #include "sched_tests.h"
> >   
> >   /*
> > @@ -288,6 +290,7 @@ static const struct drm_sched_backend_ops drm_mock_scheduler_ops = {
> >    */
> >   struct drm_mock_scheduler *drm_mock_sched_new(struct kunit *test, long timeout)
> >   {
> > +	static unsigned int instance;
> I know statics are initialized to 0 automatically, but writing it out
> explicitly is probably advantageous for readability, especially since
> we're incrementing.

One note: this trips checkpatch's "do not initialise statics to 0"
error, so I followed your suggestion over the checkpatch rule.


> >   	struct drm_sched_init_args args = {
> >   		.ops		= &drm_mock_scheduler_ops,
> >   		.num_rqs	= DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT,
> > @@ -297,11 +300,19 @@ struct drm_mock_scheduler *drm_mock_sched_new(struct kunit *test, long timeout)
> >   		.name		= "drm-mock-scheduler",
> >   	};
> >   	struct drm_mock_scheduler *sched;
> > +	struct device *dev;
> > +	char name[64];
> >   	int ret;
> >   
> >   	sched = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*sched), GFP_KERNEL);
> >   	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, sched);
> >   
> > +	snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%u", args.name, ++instance);
> Any particular reason why you begin with index 1?

No particular reason -- switched to instance++ so the numbering
starts at 0.

The updated v4 patch will be send later.
Thanks again for your time and for catching these points.

Best regards,
Shixiong Ou