[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <df984423-a751-2251-e392-840675da31e5@usp.br>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 08:43:02 -0300
From: Maíra Canal <maira.canal@....br>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Isabella Basso <isabbasso@...eup.net>, magalilemes00@...il.com,
tales.aparecida@...il.com, mwen@...lia.com, andrealmeid@...eup.net,
siqueirajordao@...eup.net, Trevor Woerner <twoerner@...il.com>,
leandro.ribeiro@...labora.com, n@...aprado.net,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
michal.winiarski@...el.com,
José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] drm: selftest: convert drm_format selftest to
KUnit
On 7/15/22 03:59, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 7/15/22 02:03, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 4:51 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 05:30:47PM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote:
>>>> Considering the current adoption of the KUnit framework, convert the
>>>> DRM format selftest to the KUnit API.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <maira.canal@....br>
>>>
>>> This patch results in:
>>>
>>> Building powerpc:allmodconfig ... failed
>>> --------------
>>> Error log:
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_format_test.c: In function 'igt_check_drm_format_min_pitch':
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_format_test.c:271:1: error: the frame size of 3712 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes
>>>
>>> presumably due to function nesting.
>>
>> This can happen when there's a lot of KUNIT_EXPECT_* calls in a single function.
>> See [1] for some related context.
>> There were a number of patches that went into 5.18 ([2] and others) to
>> try and mitigate this, but it's not always enough.
>>
>> Ideally the compiler would see that the stack-local variables used in
>> these macros don't need to stick around, but it doesn't always
>> happen...
>
> Thanks Daniel for the explanation.
>
>> One workaround would be to split up the test case functions into smaller chunks.
>>
>
> Maíra,
>
> Could you please look at splitting in smaller chunks to mitigate this issue ?
I'll look into this during the weekend. Thanks Guenter for the report.
Best Regards,
- Maíra Canal
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists