| Message ID | 20230329-kunit-devm-inconsistencies-test-v1-1-015b1574d673@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drivers: base: Add tests showing devm handling inconsistencies | expand |
Hi Maxime,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on a6faf7ea9fcb7267d06116d4188947f26e00e57e]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Maxime-Ripard/drivers-base-Add-basic-devm-tests-for-root-devices/20230602-232247
base: a6faf7ea9fcb7267d06116d4188947f26e00e57e
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230329-kunit-devm-inconsistencies-test-v1-1-015b1574d673%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drivers: base: Add basic devm tests for root devices
config: m68k-randconfig-r013-20230601 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230603/202306030141.WvTexQJf-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.3.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
mkdir -p ~/bin
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/f685d9ffe8ed7605cf0edbfb05a7e65611216b21
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Maxime-Ripard/drivers-base-Add-basic-devm-tests-for-root-devices/20230602-232247
git checkout f685d9ffe8ed7605cf0edbfb05a7e65611216b21
# save the config file
mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.3.0 ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k olddefconfig
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.3.0 ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k SHELL=/bin/bash
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306030141.WvTexQJf-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
drivers/clk/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/tests/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
drivers/hid/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
fs/ext4/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
fs/fat/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
kernel/kcsan/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
lib/kunit/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
mm/kfence/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
net/sunrpc/.kunitconfig: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/.gitignore: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/Makefile: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/run_tags_test.sh: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/config: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/settings: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:20 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: One small suggestion below <snip> > +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv; > + int ret; > + > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); Note: should we use an init function to handle this setup? We can store it in test->priv instead. static int my_init(struct kunit *test) { struct test_priv *priv; priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(test_priv), GFP_KERNEL); if (!priv) return -ENOMEM; // N.B. I think you could probably still use assert instead init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); if (!priv->dev) return -ENOMEM; test->priv = priv; } ... static struct kunit_suite root_device_devm_test_suite = { .name = "root-device-devm", .init = my_init, .test_cases = root_device_devm_tests, }; Daniel
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > The root devices show some odd behaviours compared to regular "bus" devices > that have been probed through the usual mechanism, so let's create kunit > tests to exercise those paths and odd cases. > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > --- > drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig | 2 + > drivers/base/test/Kconfig | 4 ++ > drivers/base/test/Makefile | 2 + > drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 128 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..473923f0998b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > +CONFIG_KUNIT=y > +CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST=y > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > index 610a1ba7a467..9d42051f8f8e 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ config TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE > > If unsure say N. > > +config DM_KUNIT_TEST > + tristate "KUnit Tests for the device model" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + depends on KUNIT > + > config DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST > bool "KUnit Tests for property entry API" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > depends on KUNIT=y > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Makefile b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > index 7f76fee6f989..d589ca3fa8fc 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/test/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE) += test_async_driver_probe.o > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST) += root-device-test.o > + > obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST) += property-entry-test.o > CFLAGS_property-entry-test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..fcb55d8882aa > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +// Copyright 2023 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> > + > +#include <kunit/resource.h> > + > +#include <linux/device.h> > + > +#define DEVICE_NAME "test" > + > +struct test_priv { > + bool probe_done; > + bool release_done; > + wait_queue_head_t release_wq; > + struct device *dev; > +}; > + > +static void devm_device_action(void *ptr) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > + > + priv->release_done = true; > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > +} > + > +static void devm_put_device_action(void *ptr) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > + > + put_device(priv->dev); > + priv->release_done = true; > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > +} > + > +#define RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS 500 > + > +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv; > + int ret; > + > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > + > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > + > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > + > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > + > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > +} > + > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv; > + int ret; > + > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > + > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > + > + get_device(priv->dev); Why are you incrementing the reference here? > + > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > + > + put_device(priv->dev); And then dropping it here? What did that accomplish? You shouldn't have needed to do that at all, right? THat's all the difference from the previous function? What is this testing? > + > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > + > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > +} > + > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct test_priv *priv; > + int ret; > + > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > + > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > + > + get_device(priv->dev); > + > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_put_device_action, priv); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > + > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > + > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > +} > + > +static struct kunit_case root_device_devm_tests[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_unregister_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test), I can't figure out what you are trying to test here at all, which doesn't bode well for this patchset. Can you document it better? What should be happening (or not happening) that you are trying to ensure works properly? All I see is a register/devm_something/unregister sequence and then wait for the device to be freed. Am I missing something else? thanks, greg k-h
Hi, On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 04:43:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > > > The root devices show some odd behaviours compared to regular "bus" devices > > that have been probed through the usual mechanism, so let's create kunit > > tests to exercise those paths and odd cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > --- > > drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig | 2 + > > drivers/base/test/Kconfig | 4 ++ > > drivers/base/test/Makefile | 2 + > > drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 128 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..473923f0998b > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > +CONFIG_KUNIT=y > > +CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST=y > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > index 610a1ba7a467..9d42051f8f8e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ config TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE > > > > If unsure say N. > > > > +config DM_KUNIT_TEST > > + tristate "KUnit Tests for the device model" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > + depends on KUNIT > > + > > config DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST > > bool "KUnit Tests for property entry API" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > depends on KUNIT=y > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Makefile b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > index 7f76fee6f989..d589ca3fa8fc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE) += test_async_driver_probe.o > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST) += root-device-test.o > > + > > obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST) += property-entry-test.o > > CFLAGS_property-entry-test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..fcb55d8882aa > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +// Copyright 2023 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> > > + > > +#include <kunit/resource.h> > > + > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > + > > +#define DEVICE_NAME "test" > > + > > +struct test_priv { > > + bool probe_done; > > + bool release_done; > > + wait_queue_head_t release_wq; > > + struct device *dev; > > +}; > > + > > +static void devm_device_action(void *ptr) > > +{ > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > + > > + priv->release_done = true; > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > +} > > + > > +static void devm_put_device_action(void *ptr) > > +{ > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > + > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > + priv->release_done = true; > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > +} > > + > > +#define RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS 500 > > + > > +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > + int ret; > > + > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > + > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > + > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > + > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > + > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > + int ret; > > + > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > + > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > + > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > Why are you incrementing the reference here? > > > + > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > + > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > And then dropping it here? > > What did that accomplish? You shouldn't have needed to do that at all, > right? > > THat's all the difference from the previous function? What is this > testing? > > > > + > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > + > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > + int ret; > > + > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > + > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > + > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > + > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_put_device_action, priv); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > + > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > + > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static struct kunit_case root_device_devm_tests[] = { > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_unregister_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test), > > I can't figure out what you are trying to test here at all, which > doesn't bode well for this patchset. > > Can you document it better? What should be happening (or not happening) > that you are trying to ensure works properly? > > All I see is a register/devm_something/unregister sequence and then wait > for the device to be freed. Am I missing something else? So I guess most of the context was dropped since I first posted that series (and I believe that the following will also answer the comment on the other patch). It spawned from the discussion here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230324123157.bbwvfq4gsxnlnfwb@houat/ Basically, depending on the bus (platform vs root devices), and whether a driver was bound to the device or not, the device managed actions might or might not run. This lead us in DRM to create helpers that will register a platform device and bind it to a dumb driver so that we can have the proper behaviour (ie, when we free the device, the device managed actions are executed). We wanted to create generic helpers for kunit to create a new device instance to run a test on, and you were (not surprisingly) not really along with it. We discussed the above fact that the bus and bind-ness of a device was affecting device managed actions, I provided a bunch of kunit tests showing the inconsistencies that led to what we did in DRM, and you offered to fix it if I submitted the tests. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/ZB2a291P5abeah6s@kroah.com/ And so here we are :) Those tests are not doing much indeed but checking whether a device managed action would run in various scenarii. If you run them, you'll end up with: $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/base/test/ [10:28:39] Configuring KUnit Kernel ... Regenerating .config ... Populating config with: $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig [10:28:40] Building KUnit Kernel ... Populating config with: $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig Building with: $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit --jobs=32 [10:28:50] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... [10:28:50] ============================================================ [10:28:50] ============== root-device-devm (3 subtests) =============== [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_unregister_test [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test [10:28:50] # root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c:105 [10:28:50] Expected ret > 0, but [10:28:50] ret == 0 (0x0) [10:28:50] [FAILED] root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test [10:28:50] # root-device-devm: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 [10:28:50] # Totals: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 [10:28:50] ================ [FAILED] root-device-devm ================= [10:28:50] ============ platform-device-devm (6 subtests) ============= [10:28:50] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test [10:28:51] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test [10:28:51] # platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/platform-device-test.c:123 [10:28:51] Expected ret > 0, but [10:28:51] ret == 0 (0x0) [10:28:51] [FAILED] platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test [10:28:51] # platform-device-devm: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 [10:28:51] # Totals: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 [10:28:51] ============== [FAILED] platform-device-devm =============== [10:28:51] ============================================================ [10:28:51] Testing complete. Ran 9 tests: passed: 7, failed: 2 [10:28:51] Elapsed time: 11.701s total, 0.979s configuring, 9.601s building, 1.087s running So you can see (and test) those inconsistencies: if you're using devm, you need to have a "bus" device bound to a driver. Failing that, devm actions will not run, which we all believed was a bug in that thread above. Maxime
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 10:31:42AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 04:43:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > > > > > The root devices show some odd behaviours compared to regular "bus" devices > > > that have been probed through the usual mechanism, so let's create kunit > > > tests to exercise those paths and odd cases. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > > --- > > > drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig | 2 + > > > drivers/base/test/Kconfig | 4 ++ > > > drivers/base/test/Makefile | 2 + > > > drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 128 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..473923f0998b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > > +CONFIG_KUNIT=y > > > +CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST=y > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > index 610a1ba7a467..9d42051f8f8e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ config TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE > > > > > > If unsure say N. > > > > > > +config DM_KUNIT_TEST > > > + tristate "KUnit Tests for the device model" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > + depends on KUNIT > > > + > > > config DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST > > > bool "KUnit Tests for property entry API" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > depends on KUNIT=y > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Makefile b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > index 7f76fee6f989..d589ca3fa8fc 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE) += test_async_driver_probe.o > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST) += root-device-test.o > > > + > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST) += property-entry-test.o > > > CFLAGS_property-entry-test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..fcb55d8882aa > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +// Copyright 2023 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> > > > + > > > +#include <kunit/resource.h> > > > + > > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > > + > > > +#define DEVICE_NAME "test" > > > + > > > +struct test_priv { > > > + bool probe_done; > > > + bool release_done; > > > + wait_queue_head_t release_wq; > > > + struct device *dev; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static void devm_device_action(void *ptr) > > > +{ > > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > > + > > > + priv->release_done = true; > > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void devm_put_device_action(void *ptr) > > > +{ > > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > > + > > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > > + priv->release_done = true; > > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > > +} > > > + > > > +#define RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS 500 > > > + > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > + > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > + > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > + > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > + > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > + > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > + > > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > > > Why are you incrementing the reference here? > > > > > + > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > + > > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > > > And then dropping it here? > > > > What did that accomplish? You shouldn't have needed to do that at all, > > right? > > > > THat's all the difference from the previous function? What is this > > testing? > > > > > > > + > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > + > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > + > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > + > > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > > + > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_put_device_action, priv); > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > + > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > + > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static struct kunit_case root_device_devm_tests[] = { > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_unregister_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test), > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test), > > > > I can't figure out what you are trying to test here at all, which > > doesn't bode well for this patchset. > > > > Can you document it better? What should be happening (or not happening) > > that you are trying to ensure works properly? > > > > All I see is a register/devm_something/unregister sequence and then wait > > for the device to be freed. Am I missing something else? > > So I guess most of the context was dropped since I first posted that > series (and I believe that the following will also answer the comment on > the other patch). You have to have the context in the patch changelog itself, otherwise it is useless (remember, some of us review hundreds of patches a week, and have the short-term-memory of a squirrel.) > It spawned from the discussion here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230324123157.bbwvfq4gsxnlnfwb@houat/ > > Basically, depending on the bus (platform vs root devices), and whether > a driver was bound to the device or not, the device managed actions > might or might not run. And is that correct? I don't remember if we said it was or not. So why test something we don't know if it should be? > This lead us in DRM to create helpers that will register a platform > device and bind it to a dumb driver so that we can have the proper > behaviour (ie, when we free the device, the device managed actions are > executed). > > We wanted to create generic helpers for kunit to create a new device > instance to run a test on, and you were (not surprisingly) not really > along with it. We discussed the above fact that the bus and bind-ness of > a device was affecting device managed actions, I provided a bunch of > kunit tests showing the inconsistencies that led to what we did in DRM, > and you offered to fix it if I submitted the tests. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/ZB2a291P5abeah6s@kroah.com/ > > And so here we are :) > > Those tests are not doing much indeed but checking whether a device > managed action would run in various scenarii. If you run them, you'll > end up with: Then document them please. You can't have tests that aren't obvious what they are actually supposed to be testing, otherwise we have no idea if the test is correct or not (or if the code it is testing is correct.) > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/base/test/ > [10:28:39] Configuring KUnit Kernel ... > Regenerating .config ... > Populating config with: > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig > [10:28:40] Building KUnit Kernel ... > Populating config with: > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig > Building with: > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit --jobs=32 > [10:28:50] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... > [10:28:50] ============================================================ > [10:28:50] ============== root-device-devm (3 subtests) =============== > [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_unregister_test > [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > [10:28:50] # root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c:105 > [10:28:50] Expected ret > 0, but > [10:28:50] ret == 0 (0x0) > [10:28:50] [FAILED] root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > [10:28:50] # root-device-devm: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 > [10:28:50] # Totals: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 > [10:28:50] ================ [FAILED] root-device-devm ================= > [10:28:50] ============ platform-device-devm (6 subtests) ============= > [10:28:50] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test > [10:28:51] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > [10:28:51] # platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/platform-device-test.c:123 > [10:28:51] Expected ret > 0, but > [10:28:51] ret == 0 (0x0) > [10:28:51] [FAILED] platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > [10:28:51] # platform-device-devm: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 > [10:28:51] # Totals: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 > [10:28:51] ============== [FAILED] platform-device-devm =============== > [10:28:51] ============================================================ > [10:28:51] Testing complete. Ran 9 tests: passed: 7, failed: 2 > [10:28:51] Elapsed time: 11.701s total, 0.979s configuring, 9.601s building, 1.087s running > > So you can see (and test) those inconsistencies: if you're using devm, > you need to have a "bus" device bound to a driver. Failing that, devm > actions will not run, which we all believed was a bug in that thread > above. So, what is the correct thing to do here? Fix the driver core? Don't fix the driver core but document it? Something else? I don't think it is to create an undocumented test :) thanks, greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:14:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 10:31:42AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 04:43:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > > > > > > > The root devices show some odd behaviours compared to regular "bus" devices > > > > that have been probed through the usual mechanism, so let's create kunit > > > > tests to exercise those paths and odd cases. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig | 2 + > > > > drivers/base/test/Kconfig | 4 ++ > > > > drivers/base/test/Makefile | 2 + > > > > drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 4 files changed, 128 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..473923f0998b > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > > > +CONFIG_KUNIT=y > > > > +CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST=y > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > > index 610a1ba7a467..9d42051f8f8e 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig > > > > @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ config TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE > > > > > > > > If unsure say N. > > > > > > > > +config DM_KUNIT_TEST > > > > + tristate "KUnit Tests for the device model" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > > + depends on KUNIT > > > > + > > > > config DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST > > > > bool "KUnit Tests for property entry API" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > > > depends on KUNIT=y > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Makefile b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > > index 7f76fee6f989..d589ca3fa8fc 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/Makefile > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE) += test_async_driver_probe.o > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST) += root-device-test.o > > > > + > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST) += property-entry-test.o > > > > CFLAGS_property-entry-test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..fcb55d8882aa > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > +// Copyright 2023 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> > > > > + > > > > +#include <kunit/resource.h> > > > > + > > > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > > > + > > > > +#define DEVICE_NAME "test" > > > > + > > > > +struct test_priv { > > > > + bool probe_done; > > > > + bool release_done; > > > > + wait_queue_head_t release_wq; > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +static void devm_device_action(void *ptr) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > > > + > > > > + priv->release_done = true; > > > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void devm_put_device_action(void *ptr) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; > > > > + > > > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > > > + priv->release_done = true; > > > > + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +#define RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS 500 > > > > + > > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > > + > > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > > + > > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > > + > > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > > > > > Why are you incrementing the reference here? > > > > > > > + > > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > > + > > > > + put_device(priv->dev); > > > > > > And then dropping it here? > > > > > > What did that accomplish? You shouldn't have needed to do that at all, > > > right? > > > > > > THat's all the difference from the previous function? What is this > > > testing? > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test(struct kunit *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct test_priv *priv; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); > > > > + > > > > + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + get_device(priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_put_device_action, priv); > > > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > > > + > > > > + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); > > > > + > > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, > > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static struct kunit_case root_device_devm_tests[] = { > > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_unregister_test), > > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test), > > > > + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test), > > > > > > I can't figure out what you are trying to test here at all, which > > > doesn't bode well for this patchset. > > > > > > Can you document it better? What should be happening (or not happening) > > > that you are trying to ensure works properly? > > > > > > All I see is a register/devm_something/unregister sequence and then wait > > > for the device to be freed. Am I missing something else? > > > > So I guess most of the context was dropped since I first posted that > > series (and I believe that the following will also answer the comment on > > the other patch). > > You have to have the context in the patch changelog itself, otherwise it > is useless (remember, some of us review hundreds of patches a week, and > have the short-term-memory of a squirrel.) It wasn't really supposed to be merged either (in my mind at least). It started as a PoC showing the inconcistencies and then you asked for it to be submitted so you could play with it more easily. > > It spawned from the discussion here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230324123157.bbwvfq4gsxnlnfwb@houat/ > > > > Basically, depending on the bus (platform vs root devices), and whether > > a driver was bound to the device or not, the device managed actions > > might or might not run. > > And is that correct? I don't remember if we said it was or not. > > So why test something we don't know if it should be? You never really confirmed it was, and David and I couldn't really judge whether it was expected or not. I think it's one, David too: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CABVgOSn8H=9pQfY7Exc-e37Nm6u299AJLYup6R-_97v5Fb4bpQ@mail.gmail.com/ I don't have much experience with the core kernel, so I'm not definitive. > > This lead us in DRM to create helpers that will register a platform > > device and bind it to a dumb driver so that we can have the proper > > behaviour (ie, when we free the device, the device managed actions are > > executed). > > > > We wanted to create generic helpers for kunit to create a new device > > instance to run a test on, and you were (not surprisingly) not really > > along with it. We discussed the above fact that the bus and bind-ness of > > a device was affecting device managed actions, I provided a bunch of > > kunit tests showing the inconsistencies that led to what we did in DRM, > > and you offered to fix it if I submitted the tests. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/ZB2a291P5abeah6s@kroah.com/ > > > > And so here we are :) > > > > Those tests are not doing much indeed but checking whether a device > > managed action would run in various scenarii. If you run them, you'll > > end up with: > > Then document them please. You can't have tests that aren't obvious > what they are actually supposed to be testing, otherwise we have no idea > if the test is correct or not (or if the code it is testing is correct.) > > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/base/test/ > > [10:28:39] Configuring KUnit Kernel ... > > Regenerating .config ... > > Populating config with: > > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig > > [10:28:40] Building KUnit Kernel ... > > Populating config with: > > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig > > Building with: > > $ make ARCH=um O=.kunit --jobs=32 > > [10:28:50] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... > > [10:28:50] ============================================================ > > [10:28:50] ============== root-device-devm (3 subtests) =============== > > [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_unregister_test > > [10:28:50] [PASSED] root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > > [10:28:50] # root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c:105 > > [10:28:50] Expected ret > 0, but > > [10:28:50] ret == 0 (0x0) > > [10:28:50] [FAILED] root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > > [10:28:50] # root-device-devm: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 > > [10:28:50] # Totals: pass:2 fail:1 skip:0 total:3 > > [10:28:50] ================ [FAILED] root-device-devm ================= > > [10:28:50] ============ platform-device-devm (6 subtests) ============= > > [10:28:50] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test > > [10:28:51] [PASSED] platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > > [10:28:51] # platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/base/test/platform-device-test.c:123 > > [10:28:51] Expected ret > 0, but > > [10:28:51] ret == 0 (0x0) > > [10:28:51] [FAILED] platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_unregister_test > > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test > > [10:28:51] [PASSED] probed_platform_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test > > [10:28:51] # platform-device-devm: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 > > [10:28:51] # Totals: pass:5 fail:1 skip:0 total:6 > > [10:28:51] ============== [FAILED] platform-device-devm =============== > > [10:28:51] ============================================================ > > [10:28:51] Testing complete. Ran 9 tests: passed: 7, failed: 2 > > [10:28:51] Elapsed time: 11.701s total, 0.979s configuring, 9.601s building, 1.087s running > > > > So you can see (and test) those inconsistencies: if you're using devm, > > you need to have a "bus" device bound to a driver. Failing that, devm > > actions will not run, which we all believed was a bug in that thread > > above. > > So, what is the correct thing to do here? Fix the driver core? Don't > fix the driver core but document it? Something else? I have no idea. I have a very limited knowledge of the driver core so I certainly can't say whether it was intentional or not, and thus how we should address it. It certainly look to me like we should fix it though. > I don't think it is to create an undocumented test :) I mean, yeah, definitely. But it was supposed to be patches for you to test so you could see these issues for yourself after you asked for it, not really something that should be merged as is. Maxime
diff --git a/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..473923f0998b --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/base/test/.kunitconfig @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +CONFIG_KUNIT=y +CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST=y diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig index 610a1ba7a467..9d42051f8f8e 100644 --- a/drivers/base/test/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/base/test/Kconfig @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ config TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE If unsure say N. +config DM_KUNIT_TEST + tristate "KUnit Tests for the device model" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS + depends on KUNIT + config DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST bool "KUnit Tests for property entry API" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT=y diff --git a/drivers/base/test/Makefile b/drivers/base/test/Makefile index 7f76fee6f989..d589ca3fa8fc 100644 --- a/drivers/base/test/Makefile +++ b/drivers/base/test/Makefile @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_ASYNC_DRIVER_PROBE) += test_async_driver_probe.o +obj-$(CONFIG_DM_KUNIT_TEST) += root-device-test.o + obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_PE_KUNIT_TEST) += property-entry-test.o CFLAGS_property-entry-test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) diff --git a/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fcb55d8882aa --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/base/test/root-device-test.c @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +// Copyright 2023 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> + +#include <kunit/resource.h> + +#include <linux/device.h> + +#define DEVICE_NAME "test" + +struct test_priv { + bool probe_done; + bool release_done; + wait_queue_head_t release_wq; + struct device *dev; +}; + +static void devm_device_action(void *ptr) +{ + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; + + priv->release_done = true; + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); +} + +static void devm_put_device_action(void *ptr) +{ + struct test_priv *priv = ptr; + + put_device(priv->dev); + priv->release_done = true; + wake_up_interruptible(&priv->release_wq); +} + +#define RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS 500 + +static void root_device_devm_register_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct test_priv *priv; + int ret; + + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); + + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); + + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); + + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); + + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); +} + +static void root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct test_priv *priv; + int ret; + + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); + + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); + + get_device(priv->dev); + + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_device_action, priv); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); + + put_device(priv->dev); + + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); + + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); +} + +static void root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct test_priv *priv; + int ret; + + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv); + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->release_wq); + + priv->dev = root_device_register(DEVICE_NAME); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev); + + get_device(priv->dev); + + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, devm_put_device_action, priv); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); + + root_device_unregister(priv->dev); + + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->release_wq, priv->release_done, + msecs_to_jiffies(RELEASE_TIMEOUT_MS)); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0); +} + +static struct kunit_case root_device_devm_tests[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_unregister_test), + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_put_unregister_test), + KUNIT_CASE(root_device_devm_register_get_unregister_with_devm_test), + {} +}; + +static struct kunit_suite root_device_devm_test_suite = { + .name = "root-device-devm", + .test_cases = root_device_devm_tests, +}; + +kunit_test_suite(root_device_devm_test_suite);