linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] drm/tests: managed: Add comments and expect fail messages

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: <3shr5njdajcgjc5ogaf2bgbnmd4mzhjmhmhzhngawsft4cpkf3@txec5av6wsfa>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 11:47:30 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@...el.com>
Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, 
	Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@...el.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>, 
	Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] drm/tests: managed: Add comments and expect fail
 messages

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 11:13:22AM +0100, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> Add comments explaining the intention behind the test and certain
> implementation details related to device lifetime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> index e4790ae838ba7..986a38c9144a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ static void drm_action(struct drm_device *drm, void *ptr)
>  	priv->action_done = true;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * The test verifies that the release action is called automatically when the
> + * device is released.
> + */
>  static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>  	struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> @@ -32,6 +36,11 @@ static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
>  	dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
>  	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * DRM device can't be embedded in priv, since priv->action_done needs
> +	 * to remain allocated beyond both parent device and drm_device
> +	 * lifetime.
> +	 */
>  	drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
>  	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
>  
> @@ -44,7 +53,7 @@ static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
>  	drm_dev_unregister(drm);
>  	drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, dev);
>  
> -	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, priv->action_done);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, priv->action_done, "Release action was not called");

I'm fine with the other two comments, but I'm not really sure what that
message brings to the table. It should be pretty obvious from the
function name, variable name and comments already.

Maxime

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