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