2024-06-04 21:32:23

by Chia-I Wu

Subject: [PATCH] resource: add a basic test for walk_iomem_res_desc

This mainly tests that find_next_iomem_res() does not miss resources.

Signed-off-by: Chia-I Wu <[email protected]>
---
kernel/resource_kunit.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 96 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/resource_kunit.c b/kernel/resource_kunit.c
index 58ab9f914602b..1cbeeb44d0822 100644
--- a/kernel/resource_kunit.c
+++ b/kernel/resource_kunit.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <kunit/test.h>
#include <linux/ioport.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/sizes.h>
#include <linux/string.h>

#define R0_START 0x0000
@@ -137,9 +138,104 @@ static void resource_test_intersection(struct kunit *test)
} while (++i < ARRAY_SIZE(results_for_intersection));
}

+static int resource_walk_count(struct resource *res, void *data)
+{
+ int *count = data;
+ (*count)++;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void resource_test_walk_iomem_res_desc(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct resource root = {
+ .name = "Resource Walk Test",
+ };
+ struct resource res[8];
+ resource_size_t offset;
+ int count;
+
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, 0,
+ allocate_resource(&iomem_resource, &root, SZ_1M,
+ 0, ~0, SZ_1M, NULL, NULL));
+
+ /* build the resource tree */
+ offset = root.start;
+ res[0] = (struct resource){
+ .start = offset,
+ .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
+ .name = "SYSRAM 1",
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ };
+ offset += SZ_1K;
+
+ res[1] = (struct resource){
+ .start = offset,
+ .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
+ .name = "OTHER",
+ };
+ offset += SZ_1K;
+
+ /* hole */
+ offset += SZ_1K;
+
+ res[2] = (struct resource){
+ .start = offset,
+ .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
+ .name = "NESTED",
+ };
+ res[3] = (struct resource){
+ .start = offset + SZ_512,
+ .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
+ .name = "SYSRAM 2",
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ };
+ offset += SZ_1K;
+
+ res[4] = (struct resource){
+ .start = offset,
+ .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
+ .name = "SYSRAM 3",
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ };
+ offset += SZ_1K;
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, request_resource(&root, &res[0]));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, request_resource(&root, &res[1]));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, request_resource(&root, &res[2]));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, request_resource(&res[2], &res[3]));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, request_resource(&root, &res[4]));
+
+ /* walk the entire region */
+ count = 0;
+ walk_iomem_res_desc(IORES_DESC_NONE, IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ root.start, root.end, &count, resource_walk_count);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 3);
+
+ /* walk the region requested by res[1] */
+ count = 0;
+ walk_iomem_res_desc(IORES_DESC_NONE, IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ res[1].start, res[1].end, &count, resource_walk_count);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 0);
+
+ /* walk the region requested by res[2] */
+ count = 0;
+ walk_iomem_res_desc(IORES_DESC_NONE, IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ res[2].start, res[2].end, &count, resource_walk_count);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 1);
+
+ /* walk the region requested by res[4] */
+ count = 0;
+ walk_iomem_res_desc(IORES_DESC_NONE, IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM,
+ res[4].start, res[4].end, &count, resource_walk_count);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 1);
+
+ release_resource(&root);
+}
+
static struct kunit_case resource_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(resource_test_union),
KUNIT_CASE(resource_test_intersection),
+ KUNIT_CASE(resource_test_walk_iomem_res_desc),
{}
};

--
2.45.1.288.g0e0cd299f1-goog

2024-06-04 21:38:45

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource: add a basic test for walk_iomem_res_desc

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 02:31:46PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> This mainly tests that find_next_iomem_res() does not miss resources.

In the Subject: walk_iomem_res_desc()

> Signed-off-by: Chia-I Wu <[email protected]>

...

> + res[2] = (struct resource){
> + .start = offset,
> + .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
> + .name = "NESTED",
> + };

We have respective macros. Use them.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2024-06-04 22:53:17

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource: add a basic test for walk_iomem_res_desc

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 12:38:27AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 02:31:46PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:

...

> > + res[2] = (struct resource){
> > + .start = offset,
> > + .end = offset + SZ_1K - 1,
> > + .name = "NESTED",
> > + };
>
> We have respective macros. Use them.

And use explicitly hardocded start in all of them instead of coding += for
offset variable. For the test cases is better when data is hardcoded, esp.
when it's an expected result (just to mention, here it seems an input data).

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko