linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] drm/test: add a test suite for GEM objects backed by shmem

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: <9fb1cd9d-89cb-4f45-9d0c-9f0102e000e6@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:15:12 +0100
From:   Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc:     Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/test: add a test suite for GEM objects backed by
 shmem



On 2023-11-24 09:49, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:01:46AM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>> +static int drm_gem_shmem_test_init(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev;
>> +	struct fake_dev {
>> +		struct drm_device drm_dev;
>> +	} *fdev;
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The DRM core will automatically initialize the GEM core and create
>> +	 * a DRM Memory Manager object which provides an address space pool
>> +	 * for GEM objects allocation.
>> +	 */
>> +	fdev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, struct fake_dev,
>> +						 drm_dev, DRIVER_GEM);
>> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, fdev);
> 
> Sorry I missed it earlier, but you don't need the intermediate structure
> if you use
> 
> struct drm_device *drm;
> 
> drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_GEM);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
>

I prefer to use drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device() with the intermediate
structure. It makes the code clearer, in my opinion. Initially, when
developing the suite, I was using __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device()
as most test suites do, but I feel the list of arguments including
"sizeof(*drm), 0," is less straightforward to understand.

Thanks,
Marco