Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <d6e92498-1784-48f5-904c-8bd37770c206@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:40:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: run test suites only after module
 initialization completes
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>,
        Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231128101627.65399-1-marpagan@redhat.com>
 <878r6icenj.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <878r6icenj.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 28/11/23 12:15, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Hello Marco,
> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -737,12 +738,14 @@ static void kunit_module_exit(struct module *mod)
>>  	};
>>  	const char *action = kunit_action();
>>  
>> +	if (!suite_set.start || !virt_addr_valid(suite_set.start))
>> +		return;
>> +
> 
> I would add a comment here explaining why this condition is checked and
> what it means. Maybe something like the following ?
> 
> +       /*
> +        * Check if the kunit test suite start address is a virtual
> +        * address or a direct mapping address. This is used as an
> +        * indication of whether the kunit_filter_suites() was used
> +        * to filter the kunit test suite or not.
> +        *
> +        * If is not a virtual address, then this means that the
> +        * kunit_module_init() function was not called and the kunit
> +        * suite was not filtered. Let's just bail out in that case.
> +        */
> +       if (!suite_set.start || !virt_addr_valid(suite_set.start))
> +               return;

Good point. I'll add a comment in v3.

> 
> The patch makes sense to me though and agree that is a better approach.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
> 

Thanks,
Marco