Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <CAFd5g46NmmNy5ueRjDnCkgjHy75KVUXA0xcTXtXjxLg7mgKJng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g46NmmNy5ueRjDnCkgjHy75KVUXA0xcTXtXjxLg7mgKJng@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:50:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45MXXi_iBjJrTSUze-jjMXU18e4oN1Yo5Qg71wac6Uzjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code
To:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>,
        Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Actually add Jeremy this time. Sorry for the spam.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 5:49 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>
> +Jeremy Kerr - Just remembered that Jeremy is doing some work here and
> might be somewhat interested.
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:02 PM Brendan Higgins
> <brendanhiggins@google.com> 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@google.com>
> > ---
> >
> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] 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.
> >
> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ
> >
> > ---
> >  include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ 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.
> > + */
> > +#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++)
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5
> > --
> > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog
> >