| Message ID | 20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC,v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code | expand |
On 3/10/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > data marked __initdata. > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > --- > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > --- > include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > +/** > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct > kunit_suite > + * containing init functions or init data. > + * > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > + * > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it > suppresses > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon > boot > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > + * > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, > these > + * tests must be excluded. > + */ > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > + ##__suites) > + > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > + > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > -- > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog > > Thanks for the feature :) Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > data marked __initdata. O_o is this due to the "_probe" name being used? I think that likely deserves a comment in the code, so the "how" of the warning suppression is clear. > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> Regardless: Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > --- > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > --- > include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > +/** > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite > + * containing init functions or init data. > + * > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > + * > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > + * > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these > + * tests must be excluded. > + */ > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > + ##__suites) > + > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > + > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > -- > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog >
+Jeremy Kerr - Just remembered that Jeremy is doing some work here and might be somewhat interested. On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:02 PM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > data marked __initdata. > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > --- > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > --- > include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > +/** > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite > + * containing init functions or init data. > + * > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > + * > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > + * > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these > + * tests must be excluded. > + */ > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > + ##__suites) > + > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > + > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > -- > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog >
Actually add Jeremy this time. Sorry for the spam. On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 5:49 PM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > > +Jeremy Kerr - Just remembered that Jeremy is doing some work here and > might be somewhat interested. > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:02 PM Brendan Higgins > <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > > > > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > > data marked __initdata. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > --- > > > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > > > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > > > --- > > include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > > > +/** > > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite > > + * containing init functions or init data. > > + * > > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > > + * > > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses > > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot > > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > > + * > > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these > > + * tests must be excluded. > > + */ > > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > > + ##__suites) > > + > > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > > + > > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > > > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > > -- > > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog > >
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > data marked __initdata. > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > --- > > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > --- I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different macro. I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... Anyway, Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> -- David > include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) > > #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) > > +/** > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite > + * containing init functions or init data. > + * > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. > + * > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. > + * > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these > + * tests must be excluded. > + */ > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ > + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ > + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ > + ##__suites) > + > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) > + > #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ > for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) > > > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5 > -- > 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog >
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > > > El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@google.com> escribió: >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called >> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the >> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and >> > data marked __initdata. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> >> > --- >> > >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was >> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional >> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will >> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase >> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration >> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. >> > >> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ >> > >> > --- >> >> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do >> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information >> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different >> macro. >> >> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... > > > Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list? > I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests _after_ the init phase. In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that run during and those that run after. (Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init. If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more scalable option) Is it likely we'd have tests run after? Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for. For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615 That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson > <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@google.com> escribió: > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > >> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > >> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > >> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > >> > data marked __initdata. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > >> > --- > >> > > >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > >> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > >> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > >> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > >> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > >> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > >> > > >> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > >> > > >> > --- > >> > >> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do > >> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information > >> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different > >> macro. > >> > >> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... > > > > > > Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list? > > > > I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests > _after_ the init phase. > In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that > run during and those that run after. > (Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init. > If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more > scalable option) > > Is it likely we'd have tests run after? > Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for. > > For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615 > That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have > another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something. Hi folks, any update on this? I'm adding Richard Hughes since we need this for fwupd/LVFS, so he can provide more context.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:26 AM Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson > > <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@google.com> escribió: > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > >> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > > >> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > > >> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > > >> > data marked __initdata. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > >> > --- > > >> > > > >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > > >> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > > >> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > > >> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > > >> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > > >> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > >> > > > >> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > >> > > > >> > --- > > >> > > >> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do > > >> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information > > >> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different > > >> macro. > > >> > > >> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... > > > > > > > > > Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list? > > > > > > > I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests > > _after_ the init phase. > > In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that > > run during and those that run after. > > (Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init. > > If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more > > scalable option) > > > > Is it likely we'd have tests run after? > > Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for. > > > > For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615 > > That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have > > another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something. > > Hi folks, any update on this? I'm adding Richard Hughes since we > need this for fwupd/LVFS, so he can provide more context. v1 of the patch was posted here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/ It has the requisite Reviewed-by's and no one has complained about it. So we're now waiting for that to get picked up into Shuah's tree and into Linus' for 5.18 (possibly) or 5.19.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:26 AM Daniel Gutson > <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson > > > <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@google.com> escribió: > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > >> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called > > > >> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the > > > >> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and > > > >> > data marked __initdata. > > > >> > > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > > >> > --- > > > >> > > > > >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was > > > >> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional > > > >> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will > > > >> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase > > > >> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration > > > >> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. > > > >> > > > > >> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ > > > >> > > > > >> > --- > > > >> > > > >> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do > > > >> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information > > > >> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different > > > >> macro. > > > >> > > > >> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list? > > > > > > > > > > I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests > > > _after_ the init phase. > > > In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that > > > run during and those that run after. > > > (Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init. > > > If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more > > > scalable option) > > > > > > Is it likely we'd have tests run after? > > > Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for. > > > > > > For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run: > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615 > > > That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have > > > another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something. > > > > Hi folks, any update on this? I'm adding Richard Hughes since we > > need this for fwupd/LVFS, so he can provide more context. > > v1 of the patch was posted here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/ > > It has the requisite Reviewed-by's and no one has complained about it. > So we're now waiting for that to get picked up into Shuah's tree and > into Linus' for 5.18 (possibly) or 5.19. It'll probably be 5.19, but it should be applied to Shuah's kunit-next branch end of this week begining of next and then you can use that as a base if you wish.
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) #define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite) +/** + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite + * containing init functions or init data. + * + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite. + * + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase. + * + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these + * tests must be excluded. + */ +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...) \ + __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe), \ + CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe), \ + ##__suites) + +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite) + #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) \ for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++)
Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and data marked __initdata. Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> --- This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ --- include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5