[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191217075836.C76942072D@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:58:36 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan.maguire@...cle.com,
anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, arnd@...db.de,
davidgow@...gle.com, jdike@...toit.com, keescook@...omium.org,
richard@....at, rppt@...ux.ibm.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
yzaikin@...gle.com
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, logang@...tatee.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
knut.omang@...cle.com, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 4/6] init: main: add KUnit to kernel init
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-12-16 14:05:53)
> Remove KUnit from init calls entirely, instead call directly from
> kernel_init().
Yes, but why? Is it desired to run the unit tests earlier than opening
the console or something?
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index 978086cfd257d..ca880224c0bab 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -32,12 +32,10 @@ static bool kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> return !has_test_failed;
> }
>
> -static int kunit_executor_init(void)
> +int kunit_executor_init(void)
Should be marked __init? Even before this patch presumably.
> {
> if (kunit_run_all_tests())
> return 0;
> else
> return -EFAULT;
> }
> -
> -late_initcall(kunit_executor_init);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists