| Message ID | 20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code | expand |
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. > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > thanks, -- Shuah
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? > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > > > > thanks, > -- Shuah
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? >> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 >> > >> >> thanks, >> -- Shuah >
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? > >> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > >> > > >> > >> thanks, > >> -- Shuah > >
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
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++)