linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] of: Add test managed wrappers for of_overlay_apply()/of_node

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: <2863a45a9fa0479707672c52164ceb0d.sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 15:39:23 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] of: Add test managed wrappers for of_overlay_apply()/of_node_put()

Quoting David Gow (2024-06-13 00:48:54)
> 
> This looks good to me.
> 
> I was a little confused at first by some of the wrapper names: in
> particular that of_overlay_fdt_apply_kunit() is applying the overlay
> immediately, and deferring a cleanup action, but of_node_put_kunit()
> is not doing anything immediately, and deferring the put action. My
> feeling is that the ideal thing would be to have wrappers for all of
> the of_* functions which return a node which needs to be 'put', and
> have those wrappers add an of_node_put() action. You could then have
> of_node_put_kunit() provide a way to trigger that action early. But
> that seems like it'd be a lot of work and generate a lot of wrappers
> we otherwise wouldn't need, so this seems an okay compromise to be
> able to keep using the existing of_ functions. The documentation /
> comments help make this more clear, too.
> 
> So, no actual problems. (Assuming you don't want to put the
> documentation under the devicetree rather than under KUnit -- it can
> go either way.)
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> 

Thanks. I'll just leave this alone as I feel like the kunit postfix
means "do stuff when test is done".