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;
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 17:00:43 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Dana Elfassy <delfassy@redhat.com>
Cc:     eballetb@redhat.com, javierm@redhat.com,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dana Elfassy <dangel101@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Input: tests: add test to cover all
 input_grab_device() function
Message-ID: <ZGwCK3A+pFldJ23r@google.com>
References: <20230522215514.722564-1-dangel101@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230522215514.722564-1-dangel101@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:55:14AM +0300, Dana Elfassy wrote:
> Currently input_grab_device() isn't covered by any tests
> Thus, adding a test to cover the cases:
> 1. The device is grabbed successfully
> 2. Trying to grab a device that is already grabbed by another input
>    handle
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dana Elfassy <dangel101@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> 1. Retrieve test_handle variable to try and grab the device that's
> currently grabbed by another handle
> 2. Add verification that test_handle can indeed grab the device after
> it's released by the handle that grabbed it
> 3. Remove duplicated call for input_grab_device() in KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE()
> functions
> Changes in v2:
> - Use input_put_device() to decrement the refcount increased by get().
> - Remove unnecessary struct input_handle test_handle variable.
> 
>  drivers/input/tests/input_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/tests/input_test.c b/drivers/input/tests/input_test.c
> index 25bbf51b5c87..1939cc12bae0 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/tests/input_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/tests/input_test.c
> @@ -124,10 +124,42 @@ static void input_test_match_device_id(struct kunit *test)
>  	KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE(test, input_match_device_id(input_dev, &id));
>  }
>  
> +static void input_test_grab(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct input_dev *input_dev = test->priv;
> +	struct input_handle test_handle;
> +	struct input_handler handler;
> +	struct input_handle handle;
> +	struct input_device_id id;
> +	int res;
> +
> +	handler.name = "handler";
> +	handler.id_table = &id;
> +
> +	handle.dev = input_get_device(input_dev);
> +	handle.name = dev_name(&input_dev->dev);
> +	handle.handler = &handler;
> +	res = input_grab_device(&handle);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, res == 0);

Could you please tell me why you are using KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE() here but
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ() below?

> +
> +	test_handle.dev = input_get_device(input_dev);
> +	test_handle.name = dev_name(&input_dev->dev);
> +	test_handle.handler = &handler;
> +	res = input_grab_device(&test_handle);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, res, -EBUSY);
> +
> +	input_release_device(&handle);
> +	input_put_device(input_dev);
> +	res = input_grab_device(&test_handle);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, res == 0);
> +	input_put_device(input_dev);
> +}
> +
>  static struct kunit_case input_tests[] = {
>  	KUNIT_CASE(input_test_polling),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(input_test_timestamp),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(input_test_match_device_id),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(input_test_grab),
>  	{ /* sentinel */ }
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.40.1
> 

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry