On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:34:02PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
A few tests need to have a valid struct device. One such example is tests which want to be testing devm-managed interfaces.
Add kunit wrapper for root_device_[un]register(), which create a root device and also add a kunit managed clean-up routine for the device destruction upon test exit.
I really do not like this as a "root device" is a horrible hack and should only be used if you have to hang other devices off of it and you don't have a real device to tie those devices to.
Here you are abusing it and attempting to treat it as a real device, which it is not at all, because:
Special note: In some cases the device reference-count does not reach zero and devm-unwinding is not done if device is not sitting on a bus. The root_device_[un]register() are dealing with such devices and thus this interface may not be usable by all in its current form. More information can be found from: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20221117165311.vovrc7usy4efiytl@houat/
See, not a real device, doesn't follow normal "struct device" rules and lifetimes, don't try to use it for a test as it will only cause problems and you will be forced to work around that in a test.
Do the right thing here, create a fake bus and add devices to it.
Heck, I'll even write that code if you want it, what's the requirement, something like: struct device *kunit_device_create(struct kunit *test, const char *name); void kunit_device_destroy(struct device *dev); ?
Why do you want a "match" function? You don't provide documentation here for it so I have no idea.
Anything else needed?
The use of root-devices in the kunit helpers is intended to be an intermediate solution to allow tests which do not require device to sit on a bus avoid directly abusing the root_device_[un]register() while proper kunit device solution is being worked on. Related discussion can be found from: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSmx3A4Vwos2_8xO-XQrQAw5gvY0nc5zLpLmcJ7FtA...
Again, no, please let's not get this wrong now and say "we will fix this later" as that's not how kernel development should work...
thanks,
greg k-h