[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6e92498-1784-48f5-904c-8bd37770c206@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:40:49 +0100
From: Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: run test suites only after module
initialization completes
On 28/11/23 12:15, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com> writes:
>
> Hello Marco,
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -737,12 +738,14 @@ static void kunit_module_exit(struct module *mod)
>> };
>> const char *action = kunit_action();
>>
>> + if (!suite_set.start || !virt_addr_valid(suite_set.start))
>> + return;
>> +
>
> I would add a comment here explaining why this condition is checked and
> what it means. Maybe something like the following ?
>
> + /*
> + * Check if the kunit test suite start address is a virtual
> + * address or a direct mapping address. This is used as an
> + * indication of whether the kunit_filter_suites() was used
> + * to filter the kunit test suite or not.
> + *
> + * If is not a virtual address, then this means that the
> + * kunit_module_init() function was not called and the kunit
> + * suite was not filtered. Let's just bail out in that case.
> + */
> + if (!suite_set.start || !virt_addr_valid(suite_set.start))
> + return;
Good point. I'll add a comment in v3.
>
> The patch makes sense to me though and agree that is a better approach.
>
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
>
Thanks,
Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists