[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxoXJ1BgvRLY9F=DxHfUntRvkVBHqgJMc=0E+qCGVj6bdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:09:31 -0700
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drivers: base: Add basic devm tests for root devices
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:20 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists