Hi

Am 23.09.22 um 11:26 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> On 9/23/22 11:15, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 22.09.22 um 16:25 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
>>> drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode() is in charge of finding a proper
>>> drm_display_mode from the definition we got in the video= command line
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> Let's add some unit tests to make sure we're not getting any regressions
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c
>>> index bbc535cc50dd..d553e793e673 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c
>>> @@ -1237,3 +1237,7 @@ int drm_client_modeset_dpms(struct drm_client_dev *client, int mode)
>>>    	return ret;
>>>    }
>>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_client_modeset_dpms);
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DRM_KUNIT_TEST
>>> +#include "tests/drm_client_modeset_test.c"
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I strongly dislike this style of including source files in each other.
>> It's a recipe for all kind of build errors. Can you do something else?
>>
> 
> This seems to be the convention used to test static functions and what's
> documented in the Kunit docs: https://kunit.dev/third_party/kernel/docs/tips.html#testing-static-functions

That document says "...one option is to conditionally #include the test 
file...". This doesn't sound like a strong requirement.

> 
> I agree with you that's not ideal but I think that consistency with how
> it is done by other subsystems is also important.
>   
>> As the tested function is an internal interface, maybe export a wrapper
>> if tests are enabled, like this:
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_KUNIT_TEST
>> struct drm_display_mode *
>> drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode_kunit(drm_conenctor)
>> {
>>     return drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode(connector)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_connector_pick_cmdline_mode_kunit)
>> #endif
>>
>> The wrapper's declaration can be located in the kunit test file.
>>
> 
> But that's also not nice since we are artificially exposing these only
> to allow the static functions to be called from unit tests. And would
> be a different approach than the one used by all other subsystems...
> 

There's the problem of interference between the source files when 
building the code. It's also not the same source code after including 
the test file. At a minimum, including the tests' source file further 
includes more files. <kunit/tests.h> also includes quite a few of Linux 
header files.

IMHO the current convention (if any) is far from optimal and we should 
consider breaking it.

Best regards
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev