On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:04 PM Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > From: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> > > > > The drm_test_rect_calc_hscale and drm_test_rect_calc_vscale unit tests > > intentionally trigger warning backtraces by providing bad parameters to > > the tested functions. What is tested is the return value, not the existence > > of a warning backtrace. Suppress the backtraces to avoid clogging the > > kernel log and distraction from real problems. > > > > Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Maíra Canal <[email protected]> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> > > Cc: David Airlie <[email protected]> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: David Gow <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Albert Esteve <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > > index 17e1f34b76101..818e16e80c8f9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c > > @@ -409,8 +409,16 @@ static void drm_test_rect_calc_hscale(struct kunit > > *test) > > const struct drm_rect_scale_case *params = test->param_value; > > int scaling_factor; > > > > - scaling_factor = drm_rect_calc_hscale(¶ms->src, ¶ms->dst, > > - params->min_range, > > params->max_range); > > + /* > > + * drm_rect_calc_hscale() generates a warning backtrace whenever bad > > + * parameters are passed to it. This affects all unit tests with an > > + * error code in expected_scaling_factor. > > + */ > > + kunit_warning_suppress(test) { > > + scaling_factor = drm_rect_calc_hscale(¶ms->src, > > ¶ms->dst, > > + params->min_range, > > + params->max_range); > > + } > > > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, scaling_factor, > > params->expected_scaling_factor); > > } > > @@ -420,8 +428,15 @@ static void drm_test_rect_calc_vscale(struct kunit > > *test) > > const struct drm_rect_scale_case *params = test->param_value; > > int scaling_factor; > > > > - scaling_factor = drm_rect_calc_vscale(¶ms->src, ¶ms->dst, > > - params->min_range, > > params->max_range); > > + /* > > + * drm_rect_calc_vscale() generates a warning backtrace whenever bad > > + * parameters are passed to it. This affects all unit tests with an > > + * error code in expected_scaling_factor. > > + */ > > + kunit_warning_suppress(test) { > > + scaling_factor = drm_rect_calc_vscale(¶ms->src, > > ¶ms->dst, > > + params->min_range, > > params->max_range); > > + } > > > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, scaling_factor, > > params->expected_scaling_factor); > > } > > For both I think we should add KUNIT_EXPECT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT calls, > no?
Hi Maxime, It may indeed add verification value by ensuring the call actually generates the expected warning. The original patch did not include count checks on the version I inherited it from (i.e., https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/), so I kept the same approach while adapting to the API changes. That said, the check is simple to add, so I could include it in the next version. BR, Albert > > Maxime
