linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device creation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f0b4d2ad-9635-9ab8-7cd7-bfadded94714@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:05:14 +0200
From:   Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device
 creation

On 3/24/23 11:52, David Gow wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:51, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/23 08:34, David Gow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:11, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

>>> I think that sounds like a good strategy for now, and we can work on a
>>> set of 'generic helpers' which have an associated bus and struct
>>> kunit_device in the meantime. If we can continue to use
>>> root_device_register until those are ready, that'd be very convenient.
>>
>> Would it be a tiny bit more acceptable if we did add a very simple:
>>
>> #define kunit_root_device_register(name) root_device_register(name)
>> #define kunit_root_device_unregister(dev) root_device_unregister(dev)
>>
>> to include/kunit/device.h (or somesuch)
>>
>> This should help us later to at least spot the places where
>> root_device_[un]register() is abused and (potentially mass-)covert them
>> to use the proper helpers when they're available.
>>
> 
> Great idea.
> 
> The code I've been playing with has the following in include/kunit/device.h:
> 
> /* Register a new device against a KUnit test. */
> struct device *kunit_device_register(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> /* Unregister a device created by kunit_device_register() early (i.e.,
> before test cleanup). */
> void kunit_device_unregister(struct kunit *test, struct device *dev);
> 
> If we used the same names, and just forwarded them to
> root_device_register() and root_device_unregister() for now
> (discarding the struct kunit pointer), then I expect we could just
> swap out the implementation to gain the extra functionality.
> 
> It's a little less explicit, though, so I could see the value in using
> macros with "root_device" in the name to make the current
> implementation clearer, and the eventual change more obvious.

I think it makes sense to avoid the mass-conversions if the signatures 
for kunit_device_register() and kunit_device_unregister() are expected 
to be known by now. If there is no objections I'll add those wrappers + 
the include/kunit/device.h to v6 of this series.

I think I'll try to hold back sending the v6 until next Monday - unless 
I get really bored during the weekend ;)

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~