Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
Mickaël Salaün <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.comp.video.dri.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.documentation,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 06:24:25PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:17:49AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:43:15AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati wrote: > > > Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing bad > > > parameters to kernel API functions. Such unit tests typically check the > > > return value from such calls, not the existence of the warning backtrace. > > > > Thanks for picking this series back up! I honestly thought this had > > already landed. :) > > > > > With CONFIG_KUNIT enabled, image size increase with this series applied is > > > approximately 1%. The image size increase (and with it the functionality > > > introduced by this series) can be avoided by disabling > > > CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE. > > > > Yeah, as with my prior review, I'm a fan of this. It makes a bunch of my > > very noisy tests much easier to deal with. > > And for the record, we're also affected by this in DRM and would very > much like to get it merged in one shape or another. Here is another case: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ It would be very useful to have this feature merged. Without it, we may need to remove useful tests.