Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

On 4/8/22 11:34 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:34 PM Martin Fernandez
> <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/4/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:37 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/11/22 12:28 AM, Brendan Higgins 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>
>>>>> Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I almost applied it ...
>>>>
>>>>> This is a follow-up to the RFC here[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[2] 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since last version:
>>>>>    - I added more to the kunit_test_init_suites() kernel-doc comment
>>>>>      detailing "how" the modpost warnings are suppressed in addition to
>>>>>      the existing information regarding "why" it is OK for the modpost
>>>>>      warnings to be suppressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/
>>>>> [2] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    include/kunit/test.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>> index b26400731c02..7f303a06bc97 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>> @@ -379,6 +379,32 @@ 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.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * The only thing this macro does that's different from
>>>>> kunit_test_suites is
>>>>> + * that it suffixes the array and suite declarations it makes with
>>>>> _probe;
>>>>> + * modpost suppresses warnings about referencing init data for symbols
>>>>> named in
>>>>> + * this manner.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#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++)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The naming of the function and macro are rather confusing and can become
>>>> error prone. Let's find better naming scheme.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name. I didn't have any better ideas
>>> initially though. Any suggestions?
>>>
>>
>> What about kunit_test_init_section_suite?
> 
> Sounds fine to me. Shuah, does that sound OK to you?
> 

Sorry for the delay in responding.

As long as the two names are different enough to tell them apart.
The proposed name does that.

thanks,
-- Shuah