Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>, David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] kunit: Add macro to conditionally expose declarations to tests
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 21:56:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51352c1e-1a33-4381-9345-4324845ef5e0@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <unqbtufg2lgqdwaazti2jb6f7wkaggcc6kmcpkwxv2ylt4mgnl@bov4zj3uj66w>



On 27.08.2024 15:45, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:20:11AM GMT, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> The DECLARE_IF_KUNIT macro will introduces identifiers only if
>> CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. Otherwise if CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled
>> no identifiers from the param list will be defined.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>> ---
>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> 
> up to kunit maintainers, but it doesn't seem the word "DECLARE" is
> entirely correct. What it's doing is expanding arg, and it doesn't
> matter if it's an expression, definition, declaration.

hmm, while this is true for statement & declarations (as both have
similar notation) but not sure about the expression (that's why we have
patch 3)

> 
> Looking at patch 3, I think it would be more obvious to the caller if we
> have:
> 
> IF_KUNIT_ELSE_EMPTY()
> IF_KUNIT_ELSE_ZERO()

existing macros in this file are named as xxx_IF_KUNIT so maybe we
should try to follow that pattern...

so maybe (like BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO)

	ONLY_IF_KUNIT(body...)
	ONLY_IF_KUNIT_ZERO(expr...)

> 
>> ---
>> include/kunit/visibility.h | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kunit/visibility.h b/include/kunit/visibility.h
>> index 0dfe35feeec6..1c23773f826c 100644
>> --- a/include/kunit/visibility.h
>> +++ b/include/kunit/visibility.h
>> @@ -11,6 +11,13 @@
>> #define _KUNIT_VISIBILITY_H
>>
>> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT)
>> +    /**
>> +     * DECLARE_IF_KUNIT - A macro that introduces identifiers only if
>> +     * CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. Otherwise if CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled
>> +     * no identifiers will be defined.
>> +     * @body: identifiers to be introduced conditionally
> 
> missing an example here with fields inside a struct

would this work?

Example:

	struct example {
		int foo;
		/* private: test only */
		DECLARE_IF_KUNIT(int bar);
	};

> 
> Lucas De Marchi
> 
>> +     */
>> +    #define DECLARE_IF_KUNIT(body...)    body
>>     /**
>>      * VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT - A macro that sets symbols to be static if
>>      * CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled. Otherwise if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled
>> @@ -26,6 +33,7 @@
>>     #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(symbol) EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS(symbol, \
>>         EXPORTED_FOR_KUNIT_TESTING)
>> #else
>> +    #define DECLARE_IF_KUNIT(body...)
>>     #define VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT static
>>     #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(symbol)
>> #endif
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-27 19:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-26 22:20 [PATCH v2 0/6] kunit: Add macros to help write more complex tests Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] kunit: Introduce kunit_is_running() Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] kunit: Add macro to conditionally expose declarations to tests Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-27 13:45   ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-08-27 19:56     ` Michal Wajdeczko [this message]
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] kunit: Add macro to conditionally expose expressions " Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-27 19:04   ` Rae Moar
2024-08-27 19:47     ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] kunit: Allow function redirection outside of the KUnit thread Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-27 14:46   ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-08-27 20:30     ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-29 15:56       ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] kunit: Add example with alternate function redirection method Michal Wajdeczko
2024-08-27 14:18   ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] kunit: Add some selftests for global stub redirection macros Michal Wajdeczko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51352c1e-1a33-4381-9345-4324845ef5e0@intel.com \
    --to=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=rmoar@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox