Now that we have the VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT and EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT macros,
update the instructions to recommend this way of testing static
functions.
Signed-off-by: Arthur Grillo <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v3:
- Maintain the old '#include' way
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Changes in v2:
- Fix #if condition
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
index c27e1646ecd9..8e35b94a17ec 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
@@ -671,8 +671,23 @@ Testing Static Functions
------------------------
If we do not want to expose functions or variables for testing, one option is to
-conditionally ``#include`` the test file at the end of your .c file. For
-example:
+conditionally export the used symbol. For example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ /* In my_file.c */
+
+ VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT int do_interesting_thing();
+ EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(do_interesting_thing);
+
+ /* In my_file.h */
+
+ #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT)
+ int do_interesting_thing(void);
+ #endif
+
+Alternatively, you could conditionally ``#include`` the test file at the end of
+your .c file. For example:
.. code-block:: c
---
base-commit: eeb8e8d9f124f279e80ae679f4ba6e822ce4f95f
change-id: 20240108-kunit-doc-export-eec1f910ab67
Best regards,
--
Arthur Grillo <[email protected]>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 01:39, Arthur Grillo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now that we have the VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT and EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT macros,
> update the instructions to recommend this way of testing static
> functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arthur Grillo <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Maintain the old '#include' way
> - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix #if condition
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> ---
This looks good, thanks!
Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
We may try to add some more reference documentation for the
visibility.h header later on, but this example is probably more useful
anyway.
Cheers,
-- David