linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASoC: cs-amp-lib: Add KUnit test for calibration helpers

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]

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:02:03 +0000
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <tiwai@...e.com>, <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASoC: cs-amp-lib: Add KUnit test for calibration
 helpers

On 23/02/2024 16:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:39:10PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> 
>> +config SND_SOC_CS_AMP_LIB_TEST
>> +	tristate "KUnit test for Cirrus Logic cs-amp-lib"
>> +	depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST || KUNIT
> 
> Should this not depend unconditionally on KUNIT rather than KUNIT or
> some other stuff?  ie
> 
> 	depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
> 	depends on KUNIT
> 
> or equivalent.
> 

Now I look at it again, it's not correct. It's the ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
that is bogus.

>> +#define TYPESAFE_ACTIVATE_STATIC_STUB_PTR(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn)		\
>> +	do {									\
>> +		typecheck_fn(typeof(fn_ptr), replacement_fn);			\
>> +		__kunit_activate_static_stub(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn);	\
>> +	} while (0)
> 
> Should this be somewhere more generic in the kunit headers?

Damn, I meant to change this. I did a patch a while ago to fix
kunit_activate_static_stub() so that it worked but it takes a really
long time for kunit patches to end up in the mainline kernel. Hence this
was a temporary workaround. I noticed my fix has gone in at last but I
forgot to remove this workaround.

Can you skip this patch and take the others (assuming you are happy with
them) and I'll fixup and resubmit this test later.