linux-kernel - Re: [05/11] drm/tests: helpers: Create an helper to allocate a locking ctx

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: <5khgq6xy4ztci45qtxzo7fyvmdj3i6rrnl5yuny3gusgeeumdq@eobkes722rky>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:07:36 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     suijingfeng <suijingfeng@...ngson.cn>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [05/11] drm/tests: helpers: Create an helper to allocate a
 locking ctx

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 09:12:14PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> suijingfeng <suijingfeng@...ngson.cn> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023/7/10 15:47, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * drm_kunit_helper_context_alloc - Allocates an acquire context
> >> + * @test: The test context object
> >> + *
> >> + * Allocates and initializes a modeset acquire context.
> >> + *
> >> + * The context is tied to the kunit test context, so we must not call
> >> + * drm_modeset_acquire_fini() on it, it will be done so automatically.
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns:
> >> + * An ERR_PTR on error, a pointer to the newly allocated context otherwise
> >> + */
> >> +struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *
> >> +drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc(struct kunit *test)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, ctx);
> >> +
> >> +	drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, 0);
> >> +
> >> +	ret = kunit_add_action_or_reset(test,
> >> +					action_drm_release_context,
> >> +					ctx);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >> +
> >> +	return ctx;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc);
> >> +
> >
> > I think all of the patch inside this series are quite well.
> >
> > Personally, I can't find problems in it.
> >
> >
> > But I still want to ask a question:
> >
> > Should the managed functions you introduced be prefixed with drmm_ 
> > (instead of drm_) ?
> >
> 
> That's a good question. But personally I think that the drmm_ prefix
> should be reserved for drm_device managed resources and helpers.

Yeah, to me drmm functions are meant for resources that are tied to the
DRM device lifetime. These resources are tied to the test lifetime, so
they shouldn't share the same prefix.

> > As mindless programmer may still want to call drm_modeset_acquire_fini() 
> > on the pointer returned by
> >
> > drm_kunit_helper_acquire_ctx_alloc()?
> >
> 
> The function kernel-doc already mentions that there's no need to do that
> and that will be done automatically by kunit. So shouldn't be different of
> other functions helper where the programmer didn't read the documentation.

Right

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)