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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <wmv55cgrjx343k2pvdlnigrtehv6oq7hiss3k24xmwec7hepes@riq75ckh7eh5>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:31:58 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
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 Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:15:12AM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Then we can create an init helper, and you can allocate the drm_device
through drmm_kzalloc, but I'd like tests to use consistent constructs.

This can of course be made as a later patch: you use the same construct
the other tests do here, and later we work on the init function and
convert all tests to use it.

Maxime

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