Re: [PATCH] kunit: split resource API from test.h into new resource.h

[David Gow <davidgow@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3726 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:44 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> Background:
> Currently, a reader looking at kunit/test.h will find the file is quite
> long, and the first meaty comment is a doc comment about struct
> kunit_resource.
>
> Most users will not ever use the KUnit resource API directly.
> They'll use kunit_kmalloc() and friends, or decide it's simpler to do
> cleanups via labels (it often can be) instead of figuring out how to use
> the API.
>

A depressing (but probably not untrue) thought. I think that, even if
most people were to use the resource API, having it in test.h makes it
harder, as having the resource functions separate makes it easier to
understand as well.

> It's also logically separate from everything else in test.h.
> Removing it from the file doesn't cause any compilation errors (since
> struct kunit has `struct list_head resources` to store them).
>
> This commit:
> Let's move it into a kunit/resource.h file and give it a separate page
> in the docs, kunit/api/resource.rst.

Yay! This makes a lot of sense to me, as I've wasted a lot of time
scrolling through test.h.

>
> We include resource.h at the bottom of test.h since
> * don't want to force existing users to add a new include if they use the API
> * it accesses `lock` inside `struct kunit` in a inline func
>   * so we can't just forward declare, and the alternatives require
>     uninlining the func, adding hepers to lock/unlock, or other more
>     invasive changes.

I don't like this, but still think it's an improvement on what we have
now. Ultimately, I think adding helpers to lock/unlock or similar and
making users include this separately is probably the right thing to
do, as nesting the headers like this is a bit ugly, but I won't lose
sleep over leaving it till later.

>
> Now the first big comment in test.h is about kunit_case, which is a lot
> more relevant to what a new user wants to know.
>
> A side effect of this is git blame won't properly track history by
> default, users need to run
> $ git blame -L ,1 -C17 include/kunit/resource.h

This is a pain, but is probably worth it. Thanks for including the
command in the commit message, which should mitigate it slightly.

>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> ---

This was starting to annoy me, too, as it was a pain to read through
everything in test.h. It'll be a bit of short-term pain,
merge-conflict wise if we have other changes to the resource system
(which I fear is likely), but is worth it.

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

-- David

>
> NOTE: this file doesn't split out code from test.c to a new resource.c
> file.
> I'm primarily concerned with users trying to read the headers, so I
> didn't think messing up git blame (w/ default settings) was worth it.
> But I can make that change if it feels appropriate (it might also be
> messier).

Personally, I think it's probably worth splitting this out as well.
And the sooner we do it, the less history we'll obscure. :-)

But I agree, it's less of an issue as it only directly affects people
working on KUnit itself. Though making it easier for users to find and
read the implementation of these functions could help them understand
API "gotchas", so I think it's worthwhile.

>
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst   |   5 +
>  .../dev-tools/kunit/api/resource.rst          |  13 +
>  include/kunit/resource.h                      | 319 ++++++++++++++++++
>  include/kunit/test.h                          | 301 +----------------
>  4 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 299 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/resource.rst
>  create mode 100644 include/kunit/resource.h
>
<...snip...>

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]