[PATCH v12 09/18] kunit: test: add support for test abort

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-13 00:52:03)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:56 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 21:57:55)
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12)
> > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit {
> > > > >         struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */
> > > > >  };
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       spin_lock(&test->lock);
> > > > > +       test->death_test = death_test;
> > > > > +       spin_unlock(&test->lock);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any
> > > > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool
> > > > member, success.
> > >
> > > No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true
> > > and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a
> > > comment?
> >
> > Yes. How does it transition from true to false again?
> 
> The purpose is to tell try_catch that it was expected for the test to
> bail out. Given the default implementation there is no way for this to
> happen aside from abort() being called, but in some implementations it
> is possible to implement a fault catcher which allows a test suite to
> recover from an unexpected failure.
> 
> Maybe it would be best to drop this until I add one of those
> alternative implementations.

Ok.

> 
> > Either way, having a spinlock around a read/write API doesn't make sense
> > because it just makes sure that two writes don't overlap, but otherwise
> > does nothing to keep things synchronized. For example a set to true
> > after a set to false when the two calls to set true or false aren't
> > synchronized means they can happen in any order. So I don't see how it
> > needs a spinlock. The lock needs to be one level higher.
> 
> There shouldn't be any cases where one thread is trying to set it
> while another is trying to unset it. The thing I am worried about here
> is making sure all the cores see the write, and making sure no reads
> or writes get reordered before it. So I guess I just want a fence. So
> I take it I should probably have is a WRITE_ONCE here and READ_ONCE in
> the getter?
> 

Are the gets and sets in program order? If so, WRITE_ONCE and READ_ONCE
aren't required. Otherwise, if it's possible for one thread to write it
and another to read it but the threads are ordered with some other
barrier like a completion or lock, then again the macros aren't needed.
It would be good to read memory-barriers.txt to understand when to use
the read/write macros.